#(but in like a collusion in white collar crime way)

[almondcroissantsandink]

Is it possible to get ratioed by the company you work for (asking for a friend)

[gravity-rainbow]

Robert S. Mueller III, of course, is a prosecutor. His job as special counsel, now complete, was to decide whether to indict. But what if some of the most egregious and corrupt offenses are not illegal? Russian President Vladimir Putin has long insisted that American democracy itself is corrupt. Under his aegis, the Russians have methodically studied various components of the American body politic — campaign finance, our legal system, social media and perhaps especially the real estate industry — and exploited every loophole they could find.

As Oleg Kalugin, a former head of counterintelligence for the KGB, told me in an interview for my book “House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia,” the Mafia amounts to “one of the branches of the Russian government today.” Where Americans cracked down on the Italian American Mafia, Putin dealt with the Russian mob very differently. He co-opted it. He made it an integral part of his Mafia state. Russian gangsters became, in effect, Putin’s enforcers. They had long and deep relationships. According to a tape recording made by former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko a year before he was fatally poisoned in London, Putin had close ties to Semion Mogilevich, a top mobster, that dated to the early 1990s.

That criminals with ties to Russia bought Trump condos, partnered with Trump and were based at Trump Tower — his home, his place of work, the crown jewel of his empire — should be deeply concerning. It’s not hard to conclude that, as a result, the president, wittingly or not, has long been compromised by a hostile foreign power, even if Mueller did not conclude that Trump colluded or conspired with the Russians.

Let’s go back to 1984, when David Bogatin, an alleged Russian gangster who arrived in the United States a few years earlier with $3 in his pocket, sat down with Trump and bought not one but five condos, for a total of $6 million — about $15 million in today’s dollars. What was most striking about the transaction was that at the time, according to David Cay Johnston’s “The Making of Donald Trump,” Trump Tower was one of only two major buildings in New York City that sold condos to buyers who used shell companies that allowed them to purchase real estate while concealing their identities. Thus, according to the New York state attorney general’s office, when Trump closed the deal with Bogatin, whether he knew it or not, he had just helped launder money for the Russian Mafia.

And so began a 35-year relationship between Trump and Russian organized crime. Mind you, this was a period during which the disintegration of the Soviet Union had opened a fire-hose-like torrent of hundreds of billions of dollars in flight capital from oligarchs, wealthy apparatchiks and mobsters in Russia and its satellites. And who better to launder so much money for the Russians than Trump — selling them multimillion-dollar condos at top dollar, with little or no apparent scrutiny of who was buying them.

Over the next three decades, dozens of lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, mortgage brokers and other white-collar professionals came together to facilitate such transactions on a massive scale. According to a BuzzFeed investigation, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold in the United States since the 1980s, were shifted “in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities.”

The Trump Organization has dismissed money laundering charges as unsubstantiated, and because it is so difficult to penetrate the shell companies that purchased these condos, it is almost impossible for reporters — or, for that matter, anyone without subpoena power — to determine how much money laundering by Russians went through Trump-branded properties. But Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist, put it this way to me: “Early on, Trump came to the conclusion that it is better to do business with crooks than with honest people. Crooks have two big advantages. First, they’re prepared to pay more money than honest people. And second, they will always lose if you sue them because they are known to be crooks.”

After Trump World Tower opened in 2001, Trump began looking for buyers in Russia through Sotheby’s International Realty, which teamed up with a Russian real estate outfit. “I had contacts in Moscow looking to invest in the United States,” real estate broker Dolly Lenz told USA Today. “They all wanted to meet Donald.” In the end, she said, she sold 65 units to Russians in Trump World Tower alone.

The condo sales were just a part of it. In 2002, after Trump had racked up $4 billion in debt from his disastrous ventures in Atlantic City, the Russians again came to his rescue, by way of the Bayrock Group. At a time when Trump found it almost impossible to get loans from Western banks, Bayrock offered him enormous fees — 18 to 25 percent of the profits — simply to use his name on its developments.

So how did all this go unchallenged? According to Jonathan Winer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement in the Clinton administration, one answer may be lax regulations. “If you are doing a transaction with no mortgage, there is no financial institution that needs to know where the money came from, particularly if it’s a wire transfer from overseas,” Winer told me in an interview for my book. “The customer obligations that are imposed on all kinds of financial institutions are not imposed on people selling real estate. They should have been, but they weren’t.”

And without such regulations, prosecutors’ hands are tied.

All of which made it easier for the Russian Mafia to expand throughout the United States. As it did so, it grew closer to Trump. Even though Mogilevich had no known direct contacts with Trump, several of his associates did. Among them was Bogatin, who took part in a massive gasoline tax scam, and whose brother, Jacob (Yacov) Bogatin, was indicted with Mogilevich in 2003 on 45 felony counts of stock fraud. (Because there is no extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, they were never brought to trial in the United States.)

Another Mogilevich associate in Trump’s orbit was the late Vyacheslav Ivankov, a ruthless extortionist who became renowned as one of the most brutal killers in the annals of Russian crime. Mogilevich had sent him to New York in 1992 with a mandate to consolidate the Russian Mafia in the United States and to form alliances with the Cosa Nostra and other Mafias. Once he arrived, Ivankov became a regular at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, and was widely thought to be based in the Brighton Beach area of Brooklyn, where many Russian mobsters lived. But when the FBI came looking for him, it discovered that the head of the Russian Mafia in New York owned a luxury condo in the glitziest part of Manhattan — at 721 Fifth Avenue, in fact — Trump Tower. There is no evidence of personal interaction between Trump and Ivankov.

Yet another Mogilevich associate with ties to Trump was Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, better known as Taiwanchik, whose relationship with Mogilevich dates back more than three decades. Indicted in 2002 for bribing Olympic figure skating judges, Tokhtakhounov was awarded the No. 5 position on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, two slots behind Mogilevich. In April 2013, two gambling rings that he allegedly ran were busted by the FBI on the 63rd floor of Trump Tower, resulting in the indictments of 34 members and associates of Russian organized crime. Among them was Tokhtakhounov, who fled the country to avoid prosecution, and appeared later that year at Trump’s 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.

These were just some of the Russian mobsters who gravitated toward Trump as they laundered money and cultivated politicians. Over time, they learned how to work the system. They paid large sums for the most powerful legal talent in the land — enough, at times, to woo the very men who had once been charged with pursuing them. In 1997, former FBI director William Sessions traveled to Moscow and alerted the world to the horrifying dangers of the brutal Russian Mafia. But 10 years later, he took on as a client the Ukrainian-born Mogilevich. At the time, the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating racketeering charges against Mogilevich over questionable energy deals between Russia and Ukraine. Sessions’s successor as FBI director, Louis Freeh, also later represented Russian clients. All perfectly legal. In Freeh’s case, the client was Denis Katsyv’s Cyprus-based Prevezon Holdings. Freeh helped Prevezon settle a money laundering probe by the U.S. government after the company was accused of laundering more than $200 million in a Russian tax fraud scheme in which an American hedge fund manager and his firm, Hermitage Capital, were said to have been framed by the Russians. The ensuing scandal culminated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, Hermitage’s accountant, and led to the passage of the Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned high-level Russian officials. Natalia Veselnitskaya, Prevezon’s defense lawyer, attended the much-discussed June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.; Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Manafort has been convicted of bank fraud, tax fraud and failure to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act by not reporting foreign income.

The special counsel’s report has not yet been released, only Attorney General William P. Barr’s summary with its finding of no collusion. But it’s clear that it was profoundly naive to think that a prosecutor would save the day and cure our diseased democracy of all that ails it. That’s because the problem behind this assault on the nation’s sovereignty far transcends the criminal arena. I’m no fan of Putin’s, but he was right about one thing: Swaths of American society are corrupt. If we want to protect our most precious institutions, we should examine new regulations in a wide range of sectors. The House Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight Committee and the House Judiciary Committee have geared up for hearings and investigations. They had better move fast. We have a president who has a long, tangled history with figures connected to Russian organized crime — all of it, apparently, perfectly legal.

[raximoweek]

An insight into Cristina’s life by C. Bonadincel

You wake up to 45 text messages from your son Máximo waiting to be answered on your phone.  Check your facebook/twitter/Instagram and you have 450 likes on the selfie you took of yourself with a caption making fun of our current President.  You want more attention though, so you take a shower, put on a shirt that whoops! accidentally lets the side of your bra show, put on 4 whole pencil’s worth of eyeliner to go from a 9.5/10 to a 10/10, and snap a quick selfie of yourself that you quickly upload to your social media accounts with some sarcastic emojis.  Maybe this one will get you 4500 likes.

Your driver takes you to the Senate in a car that cost 365,283 whole Argentinian pesos.  Before you get out you make a quick video complaining about all the injustices done to you by Federal Justice Claudio Bonadio : (  Got to keep the public talking about you! you laugh to yourself.  As you walk into the Congress building, you pass several Federal Justices on the street. They all stare at you as you pass. Most of them are actually concerned with bringing justice to the nation of Argentina and punishing its most heinous white-collar criminals.  Gross! You ignore them.  These losers spend their whole adult life jerking off to persecuting their political opponents, and they still only earn one million pesos per year—legally.

You stop to get your usual morning diet fruit salad on the way.  Have to maintain all 140 pounds of you!  The good-looking boy serves you and tries chatting you up again, but he’s too good looking, nothing like your crude, hulking son Máximo or the rotting corpse of your dead husband who it’s time to get over.  You know he’s going to ask you out one day, but you’ll end up rejecting him because you only fuck people with the last name of Kirchner.  You don’t mind the attention though.

Several men stare at your cleavage and the bruises on your leg that conveniently show through your tights as you resume your walk.  It’s so hard to be such a radiant goddess.  You enter your 106,000 pesos per year Senate job which you had to get by manipulating the voters due to being a mentally ill degenerate with no competence or leadership skills who’s thirsty for power.  You notice many of your male political opponents are there. The Senate is sexist.  Typical.  You greet all of your coworkers: Máximo’s handsome young friend from La Cámpora, Axel Kicillof your young, brilliant Chad former minister of economy, Máximo’s other handsome young friend from La Cámpora, Hot Blonde Female Senator who you’re probably fucking, and nemesis from the opposing party Vice President Gabriela Michetti (in a wheelchair, so she can’t even sit on the special throne!)  Of course the “less corrupt” political party is currently in office.  They get all the good jobs now!  But that would change.  We’re fighting to get me—I mean, us--back into power! You remember how Kim Il-Sung of North Korea is still considered the leader of the nation even after his death. Good on him, you think to yourself.

You ask the Vice President to shut up and let you speak and she immediately does so.  You cut a grape from your fruit salad in half because grapes have such a high caloric content and demand that a bottle of low-sodium mineral water be brought to your desk.  Máximo’s young Chad friends have to come over to flirt with you, so you make the entire Senate wait for you to begin your egocentric ramblings.  Then you take the floor and talk for 45 minutes about how you’re being persecuted for your beliefs and then answer another 45 texts from Máximo.  Then leader of the majority Miguel Pichetto asks to speak.  He can be so conceited sometimes thinking anyone cares what he has to say! But at least this gives you time to go to the bathroom.  You stand up and make sure to announce how unfair it is that the bathroom is so far away while you pretend to be leaving the room quietly and respectfully.  Before you know it, it’s lunchtime and you hide in your office and stuff your face with your favorite fried pig intestines so no one sees you eating anything other than fruit salad and grilled chicken.

Around 2pm another senator from your party comes and jokingly asks if you’re doing any work.  You laugh and tell him you don’t need to work to make money and smile sexily at him (because you’re talking about all your laundered money).  You spend the rest of your time in the Senate ranting on Facebook about how Federal Justice Claudio Bonadio has accused you of colluding with Iran.  What an ugly, fat son of a bitch he is!  Your post from this morning now has 450,000 likes.  You have several text messages from Máximo letting you know he wants to get dinner tonight.  So far, he’s asked for dinner 3 times and for pre-dinner drinks 4 times. You check Página|12, the one news site in the country that understands how oppressed you and other Kirchnerite policians are (but especially you).  You see an article about how Federal Justice Claudio Bonadio should be removed from the Iran case because he holds a grudge against you and is very corrupt besides. You share the article and say how hard it is for you that this competent, experienced judge is persecuting you and your family.  You get 45 likes and 45 comments agreeing with you and saying that this innocent and ruggedly handsome enforcer of the law of the land should go to hell.

After work you head back to your apartment and do 30 minutes of running on the treadmill with smoke pouring out of your ears while watching the news anchors on TV talk about your criminal behavior.  You notice your personal trainer Luciana staring at you from the weights section. She’s pretty hot, but topping you is a privilege that she has to repeatedly earn, so you put your headphones in to listen to the Gladiator soundtrack.  You wouldn’t dare take a selfie when you’re done with the treadmill, because you don’t want the public seeing what you look like with most of your eye makeup sweated off. You head off to the water cooler to drink another glass of low-sodium mineral water.  Luciana tries to make conversation with you.  She’s hot and attractively younger than you, but her last name isn’t Kirchner, so you politely make it clear that you’re not interested (today).

You already have several more likes on your reposted article about angel of justice Bonadio and more comments about how heartless he is to persecute the best president the country has ever had.  Máximo has now asked you to go out for dinner with him 6 times.  You text him 4 times and organize the night and make sure to use lots of heart emojis.  You get home and say hi to your poodle Lolita and ignore your daughter Florencia.  She’s 27 and still a vegan.  She’s always cared about the environment, stood up for the rights of dairy cows and shit like that.  Now her baby daddy dumped her because of how obsessed with soy milk and social justice she is.  Maybe if she showed some ambition like you did.  You got into politics relatively early on because the electorate noticed how charming, sexy, and honest you are.  She was always Dad’s favorite though, and never appreciated you enough before he died.  She could be such a selfish bitch sometimes.

You call your 89 year-old mom and tell her that you want to buy a new Birkin bag but don’t want to use any of the funds you’ve thoughtfully embezzled from public works projects.  She gives you 6,088,350 pesos that she earned from scamming the Post Office.  You say thank you, even though you know you don’t really need it because you recently had a net worth of 80 million USD.  You deserve it for simply being Cristina Kirchner.

You decide it’s time to meet up with Máximo.  You need protection out on the street though in case the people who have seen through your grating charisma and realize what a sexy piece of shit you really are decide to throw eggs at you again.  You text some of Máximo’s buff, Chad friends from La Cámpora to come walk with you. You take fifty selfies and a dozen videos for your YouTube channel while you’re walking down the street.  Some men who also happen to work as federal judges and prosecutors call out to you about how immoral you are, and you and your Chad posse laugh hilariously.  All these guys aren’t getting laid, right?  Like, why do they even bother?

As soon as you get to the restaurant Máximo comes to greet you and plies you with expensive wine.  You don’t really plan on staying though because you want to have a private night with your good for nothing Chad son who’s never had a job interview in his life.  You make sure to keep his handsome male friends from La Cámpora there so they can protect Máximo’s blubbery body and lack of a law degree too.

After 4 men come to talk to you and tell you they definitely don’t believe that you allegedly ordered the murder of a prosecutor who was about to accuse you of collusion with Iran, which gets them kisses on the cheek from you, you abandon the restaurant and head off down the street with Máximo.  People greet him with respect even though he has no degrees from institutions of higher learning and owns 45 SUVs purchased with stolen money.  Your Chad bodyguards get in between you and Máximo and the innocent Argentinian citizens who you proclaim to love so much who are demanding you answer for your disgraceful crimes and complete lack of disrespect for our justice system, especially learnèd and powerful Federal Justice Claudio Bonadio. Máximo takes a video of you two walking down the street while ignoring the demands of your countrymen.  You can’t stop laughing at how empowered it makes you feel to ignore this persecution.  This is great!

At home you and Máximo sit close together on your expensive imported couch and talk because literally no one matters to you other than the degenerates in your family.  Máximo tells you how he’s broken up with his latest girlfriend, just another one in a series of girls who look like a broke-ass version of you.  You tell him how you approve of this because she was a distraction—Kirchners need to stick together.  That’s why you refuse to testify in your court appearance and won’t meet Federal Justice Claudio Bonadio’s eyes when he greets you.  Some guys can be so pathetic.  Your lawyer Gregorio is texting you.  He is a pretty hot Chad and you’ve considered ****ing him to see if that will get you free legal representation and perhaps inspire him to bribe the jury (with his own money, not yours).  Your degenerate son Máximo gets jealous so you stop replying.  The only thing you love more than defrauding and deceiving an entire country while dressing like an oversexed mom is your son who always seems to get girlfriends even though he has accomplished nothing in life (certainly nothing like going to law school and becoming a Federal Justice, anyway).  You make plans to have Máximo spend the night. You ask him which of your apartment’s 5 bedrooms he’d like to sleep in and he says he wants to sleep in yours. Gregorio is still texting you but you have long since stopped replying.  Even your Chad lawyer is kind of acting like a loser right now.  You tell Máximo that of course he can sleep in your bed with you because he’s such a big strong boy who spends Mommy’s laundered money so well. He is a literally perfect Kirchner. You remember Florencia telling you that it’s weird that Máximo still likes to sleep in your bed at age 40, yet she’s the one sleeping alone tonight.  You laugh to yourself. She must be doing something wrong.  She’s obviously not worthy of the kind of love you and Máximo share.

After a night as deviant as you are, you wake up to Luciana asking if you’ll have hot girl-on-girl sex with her today, your mom sending you her fraudulent money for your new Birkin bag, and 450 comments on a leaked photo someone took of you on the treadmill saying you look good even with your 45 pounds of mascara smeared all over your face.  It’s only 9am.  Máximo brings you cake in bed and you post another article trashing the blameless silver fox Federal Justice Claudio Bonadio on all your social media profiles.  Today is going to be a good day!

[ramrodd]

COMMENTARY:

Duckass Donny's tweets reflect his unconscious, that is, his authentic personality.

We've had 995 days to connect a whole lot of dots between the record of his administration, the Mueller Report and his tweets and, here we are in the Ukraine. The people Liddle Donny is dealing with by proxy with Guilliani are Putin's existential threat in Russia. The weapons we are giving to the Ukraine kill Red Army soldiers who work for the Kremlin. Putin has nothing to do with the Ukraine independence movement, but the people who helped stage the Miss Universe Pageant with Donny Duckass financed it to create a zone for Free Market Fascism to flourish.

Trump did not collude with the Kremlin to do anything because he is an unfaithful business partner. The Kremlin continues to do business the way the Soviets did, and they could not afford to get in bed with someone like Trump. Stalin tried it once with Hitler and that took a nasty turn. Dealing with Trump is a similar transaction with a criminal business model. It is mostly white collar crime, but it's mobbed up about two degrees of separation with Degennova and Juilliani, which Rudy's trip to Vienna illuminates.

What Moscow Mitch needs to understand is that the confluence of Duckass Donny's twittervers with his televised behaviors is Captain Queeg on the bridge of the Caine during a hurricane. Only, there is no hurricane. For the RNC, Impeacment is no longer the issue: Article 184 is. White House Resistance needs to seriously and expeditiously consider the 22nd Amendment as the defining contingency. It has been evident since his inaugural adress, but it takes time to accumulate the quantify the evidence sufficiently to take it to court.

Which has always defined Speaker Pelosi's strategy. David Hume's law of evidence is the basis of Marx's Dialectical Materialism and Aristotle's empericism is the basis of Hume's theory of perception undergirding his law of evidence. It's like the Fair Witness in "Stranger in a Strange Land": if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

And, now, we have the Ukraine. Part 2 of the Mueller Report is all about the Ukraine. Part 2 is the metaphysically facial evidence for conviction. "Ukraine" is a code word for "Criminal Collusion" as a characteristic of "Free Market Fascism". Putin has nothing to do with it.

Putin's calculus in Syria assumes the Kurds to represent regional ballast in any two state solution the defeat of Netanyahu makes possible. This evaluation flies in the face of the Clinton Russian narrative, which defines the popular wisdom and derives from the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam. Currently, America is the outlaw nation but it is easy to fix. Destroying the Conservative movement at the polls is a necessary step. The 22nd Amendment is only a partial, temporary fix, because of Mike Pence. It is better to let the voters replace them but, just because there isn't a typhoon, globally, at the moment, doesn't change the fact we are on the bridge of the USS Caine and Donny Duckass is reprising Humphrey Bogart's role with the specific purpose of creating a typhoon to change the subject from the Ukraine. At what point will he cross the line between the 22nd Amendment and treason?

Ask the Kurds.

Schwarzman is tainted by his association with the corruption represented by the Mercers and Steve Bannon's coordination of a transnational criminal organization commited to doing, globally, what they have in the Ukraine. Giving up the Kurds is part of the deal Duckass Donny made with Erdogan to do business in Ankara with his Trump Towers. It's the moral equivalent of Cheney's "Blood for Oil" calculus for invading Iraq.

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/world/jailed-french-executive-who-felt-force-of-us-bribery-law/

Jailed French executive who felt force of US bribery law

Image copyright Brigitte Baudresson

Image caption Pierucci’s five-year ordeal is a cautionary tale for globe-trotting executives

In April 2013, as Frédéric Pierucci stepped off a plane at New York’s JFK airport during a routine business trip, he was seized and handcuffed by uniformed men.

The 45-year-old executive for Alstom, a French energy and transport group, was then driven to the FBI building in Manhattan, where the reason for his arrest became clear.

In 2003-4, a federal prosecutor explained, Pierucci had authorised bribes to Indonesian officials to secure a contract for boilers at a power plant.

This was true. At the time, he was working for an Alstom subsidiary in Connecticut. Bribery was common practice at the company then.

Risky business

Pierucci had assumed he was safe from prosecution because he had not arranged the Indonesian kickbacks, only signed off on them. And since then, Alstom had assured the US justice department that it was cleaning up its act.

But, as Pierucci discovered, the department had been gathering evidence against him on charges including wire fraud and money laundering.

He did not know about them because the indictment had remained sealed – as it was for Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei executive who was arrested in Canada last year and denies US allegations that she helped evade sanctions on Iran.

Pierucci was to spend more than five years in the clutches of the American justice system. His story illustrates the risks faced by foreign businessmen who – sometimes unbeknownst to them – are accused of breaching US law.

Image copyright Google

Image caption The bribes were in connection with the Tarahan power plant on Sumatra island, which was completed in 2007

The US government has long been dead serious about corruption. In 1977 it approved the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the world’s first ban on bribing foreign officials. Elsewhere, companies continued to get away with it for decades. In the 2000s, however, spurred by a campaign by the OECD, other developed nations began to clamp down.

Co-operation from foreign law-enforcement agencies helped the US government export its anti-corruption drive. Alstom is a case in point. The justice department pursued the company after Italian, Swiss and British prosecutors had exposed the company’s global bribery scheme.

American investigators have their own way of pursuing white-collar crime. Instead of launching raids on company offices, they start by asking for co-operation. The request is polite but the underlying message brutal: help us incriminate yourself and we will not come down as hard as we might otherwise.

Prison rules

When Alstom was first approached in this way in 2011, its then-chief lawyer Fred Einbinder understood the need for coming clean. “When you get a subpoena, it’s not like you’ve got a choice,” he tells the BBC.

But his advice to co-operate was ignored. Later that year, Einbinder was let go.

Image copyright Reuters

The prosecutor offered his quarry a deal: Pierucci could be released if he agreed to act as a secret FBI informant within Alstom. He declined the offer.

The next day, Pierucci was denied bail and transferred to the Wyatt Detention Facility, a high-security prison in Rhode Island.

He had to adjust quickly to living alongside hardened criminals. “You must not look fellow inmates in the eye. You must not touch or even brush past them. Any perceived slight can turn into a fight,” Pierucci told the BBC in a recent interview. A 70-year old man was raped by a drugged-up youth in a nearby cell, he says.

Detention conditions were not Pierucci’s only, or even main, concern. He had no idea how long he would stay inside. The Connecticut-based lawyer appointed and paid by Alstom to defend him said his best hope for release was to plead guilty in a deal with prosecutors.

‘Monumental error‘

The advice may have been sound, but there was a problem. Pierucci wanted to argue that he was far down the chain of command. However he soon realised that the Alstom management would never go along with a line of defence that implicated them.

“At first I was happy that Alstom took charge of my defence – it was only later that I saw it had been a monumental error,” Pierucci says.

As months went by, the news got worse. Three other Alstom executives were arrested on bribery charges. If one of them struck a plea deal first, Pierucci’s own bargaining position would be undermined. He was in a race with the other defendants to satisfy the prosecutors.

Image copyright Google

Unsure about the next step, Pierucci turned to his cellmates for legal advice. Jacky, a veteran of the French Connection drug ring who had 36 years’ experience of the US penal system, warned him against accepting an “open plea”, where defendants sign away their presumed innocence without any guarantee on a sentence.

What Pierucci wanted, Jacky said, was a “binding plea” that commits prosecutors to a specific jail term. When he relayed this request to his lawyer, he was told – correctly – that open pleas were the only option in Connecticut.

But the lawyer thought he had a gentleman’s agreement with the prosecutor on a six-month sentence: if Pierucci admitted sole guilt, he could expect to be free by October. The alternative was to go to trial and risk up to 125 years in jail.

The pressure he was experiencing was far from unique. Thanks to mandatory sentences, US prosecutors wield huge powers. One of Pierucci’s fellow detainees, who had been caught with drugs but had no previous convictions, hanged himself in his cell after being offered 15 years as an opening bid.

Fired

In July 2013, hoping for release within months, Pierucci bowed to the inevitable and pleaded guilty. The plea deal, however, brought little relief.

Now that Pierucci was a convicted criminal, Alstom cut him loose. His absence, the dismissal letter read, “imperils the operation of the entity which you lead” and makes it impossible “to maintain our contractual relation”. In addition, it noted, his misdeeds “run counter to the values and the ethics of the group”.

Besides being apparently fired for not turning up for work while in jail, Pierucci found it a bit rich to be lectured about integrity by a firm that had engaged in corruption in many countries and been blacklisted over these practices by the World Bank.

But he recognises that the company had little choice. It made sense for Pierucci’s bosses to blame him as much as they could.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption As Alstom boss, Patrick Kron (right) was close to then-President Nicolas Sarkozy

Meanwhile Pierucci’s detention showed no sign of ending. October came and went. Six months turned into a year, without any news on sentencing. In a book on the case, Le Piège américain (the American trap), he compares his ordeal to being stuck in “an endless tunnel with slippery walls – nothing to hold on to.”

In June 2014, Pierucci was released after friends put up their homes as bond and later that year went home to Paris. But he was yet to be sentenced, and the possibility of more jail time still hung over him.

The uncertainty lasted another three years. In September 2017 Pierucci flew back to Connecticut for sentencing. The judge gave him 30 months.

He did not become a free man until late 2018, when he walked out of the Pittsburgh prison where he had served the second half of his sentence.

Paranoia?

Pierucci believes he was a pawn in three larger battles with global economic and political ramifications.

The first is the fight between the US justice department and Alstom, which resulted in total surrender by the French company.

In late 2014, it admitted having paid $75m bribes over a decade, in a scheme described by prosecutors as “astounding in its breadth, its brazenness and its worldwide consequences”. Alstom settled the case for $770m (£580m; €670m) – the largest-ever FCPA fine imposed by the department.

The arrests of Pierucci and other managers were crucial in breaking Alstom’s resistance. As then-Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said: “It was only after the department publicly charged several Alstom executives – three years after the investigation began – that the company finally co-operated.”

The second battle that Pierucci believes influenced his fate was the purchase of most of Alstom by its US rival General Electric (GE).

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Under CEO Jeffrey Immelt, GE made several mega deals, including GE’s acquisition of Alstom’s power business

The business saga and the legal cases unfolded in lockstep. Alstom boss Patrick Kron announced plans to sell the power business – 75% of the company – in mid-2014, when it was clear that the company was in the justice department’s crosshairs.

Shareholders approved the sale to GE that December. Three days later, the settlement in the bribery case took Alstom’s top brass off the hook.

Pierucci is among many in France who claim that the justice department was helping GE by keeping the pressure on Alstom until the sale was complete. According to a French parliamentary report published last year, the threat of a huge fine “undoubtedly… precipitated Mr Kron’s decision”.

Kron has always vehemently denied the allegation. “We absolutely did not make this transaction in response to any direct pressure on myself or anyone else,” he told MPs. Alstom’s power operations, he insists, were sold for the best business reasons. Indeed the purchase is widely seen as a costly mistake by GE, and in 2017 its CEO admitted as much.

The US justice department’s anti-corruption chief, Daniel Kahn, also rejects any suggestion of collusion. “We certainly didn’t force Alstom to plead guilty in order to help out GE. That never entered into consideration,” he told the BBC.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption Since the sale to GE, Alstom and its boss Henri Poupart-Lafarge have refocused on its transport business

Neither is the timing necessarily suspicious. The justice department could have taken the sale into account in its settlement with Alstom simply because of GE’s strong anti-corruption record. “In general, we don’t want to discourage companies with strong compliance programs from acquiring companies with weaker ones,” Kahn says.

Andrew Spalding, who teaches anti-corruption law at the University of Richmond, Virginia, notes that for any conspiracy between prosecutors and GE to work, it would also have to involve America’s independent judiciary. “That’s paranoia,” he says.

Power games

The third battle Pierucci is convinced he was dragged into is the biggest of all. It is nothing less than a struggle for worldwide supremacy.

In the subtitle of his book, he describes himself as a “hostage in the greatest campaign of economic destabilisation”. He is not alone in believing America is seeking to weaken foreign companies. This is the way most French analysts and many politicians have described the various Alstom sagas over the years.

Pierre Laporte, a former GE lawyer who now works as Pierucci’s partner, notes that 70% of firms targeted for US anti-bribery action are foreign – notably European. The FCPA and other laws that apply beyond US borders, Laporte says, are “tools of economic domination”.

Such suspicions may sound overblown, but they reflect serious concerns in France. Alstom, whose turbines power the country’s nuclear stations and submarines, is regarded as a strategic asset. Many worry that if a serious diplomatic spat arose with the US, as was the case during the Iraq war, French sovereignty could be undermined.

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption A US company now makes the turbines that power French nuclear submarines

America’s judicial expansionism is a matter of concern for many countries whose companies are being pursued for doing business with Iran and other states targeted by American sanctions.

Since his return to Paris, however, Pierucci has focused on the narrow issue of the fight against corruption rather than geopolitical power games.

He and Laporte have set up a consultancy to help companies stay on the right side of anti-bribery prosecutors.

There is a big demand for Pierucci’s expertise. In 2016, France belatedly passed tough anti-corruption legislation and is enforcing it. The US justice department’s Daniel Kahn says he has a “very strong relationship” with his French counterparts – this recently resulted in a successful joint action against French bank Société Générale over bribes in Libya.

“Once you identify possible violations, you can put safeguards in place,” Pierucci says. He tells his clients to be particularly vigilant about hidden practices by overseas partners or consultants that may put them at risk.

Danger can lurk in unexpected places. In 2017 a retired Siemens manager was arrested while on holiday in Croatia and extradited to the US, where he was eventually convicted over bribes paid by the German group in Argentina in the 1990s.

As the reach of US legislation expands, foreign executives who fight the law may well find that the law wins.

[newstwitter-blog]

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/03/05/ny-times-samsung-bribery-scandal-threatens-south-korea-success-story-10/

Ny Times: Samsung Bribery Scandal Threatens South Korea Success Story

South Korea’s political turmoil could usher in a new group of leaders less inclined to treat its business titans with kid gloves. The public is increasingly fed up with white-collar crime. Further, South Korea’s unique blend of business, politics and top-down hierarchical management is looking increasingly untenable in a modern age of innovation, public dissatisfaction with the old order and cutthroat competition from China and the rest of the world.

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Lee and key aides are accused of using bribes to cement the family’s control of the Samsung empire — an accusation that, if proven, would add to growing public perception that the country’s business elite are in it only for themselves. The ensuing scandal threatens to topple South Korea’s government and lead to tougher moves against big business here.

Prosecutors also indicted a group of executives tasked with cementing Mr. Lee’s grip over the sprawling empire — a group that critics say epitomizes where the country’s business culture went wrong.

South Koreans are now coming to grips with a tale of corporate power and family intrigue. It includes a mysteriously ill patriarch, a Rasputin-like confidante of the country’s president, a shadowy Samsung office that has disappeared and reappeared before, and an alleged bribe in the form of a horse.

Continue reading the main story

But it also includes the growing realization that, to compete, Samsung and South Korea as a whole will have to take a hard look at the way they do business.

“We should not miss this opportunity to cut the corrupt ties between politics and businesses,” said Moon Jae-in, a lawmaker and opposition leader who is the favorite to become South Korea’s next president. “Only when Samsung repents its collusion with politics and its anti-market activities, like seeking political favors, can it become stronger.”

Continue reading the main story

Rise of an Empire

Like its home country, Samsung is a giant in transition. The conglomerate is one of the world’s top sellers of televisions and smartphones, a key supplier for the innards of Apple’s iPhones, and the maker of products as varied as cargo ships and credit cards. Its many companies posted estimated combined sales of $262 billion. By itself, it accounts for one-fifth of its home country’s exports.

All of that is under pressure. The infamous failure of its fire-prone Galaxy Note 7 smartphone tarnished its name. Chinese rivals are making cheaper — and increasingly sophisticated — phones, televisions and appliances. Its shipbuilding business is shedding jobs. China’s government is investing lavishly to build out rival makers of microchips and memory. The scandal will delay long-term efforts to address these problems.

All in the Family

South Korea’s economy is dominated by family-controlled conglomerates called chaebol that often run business around the world. Late last year, some of the chiefs of these companies testified before lawmakers about donations to charities in the center of a political bribery scandal. These are four of the country’s biggest chaebol:

Samsung

Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters

Businesses: Smartphones, televisions, semiconductors, appliances, shipbuilding, hotels, movie production

Controlling family: The Lee family. Jay Y. Lee, Samsung’s vice chairman, became its de facto leader in 2014 after Lee Kun-hee, his father and the company’s chairman, fell ill.

Lee Kun-hee was convicted of corruption charges twice, and pardoned. His son has been indicted on bribery charges.

LG

Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Businesses: Smartphones, televisions, appliances, chemicals

Controlling family: The Koo family. Koo Bon-moo is the chairman.

Asked by lawmakers about the donations to the charities in the current scandal, Mr. Koo denied seeking or receiving special treatment for them and told lawmakers, “It was difficult to go against the government’s wishes.”

Hyundai

Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters

Businesses: Car making, shipbuilding, steel, elevators, logistics, construction

Controlling family: The Chung family.

Its chairman, Chung Mong-koo, was found guilty of fraud in 2007 and pardoned.

SK

Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Businesses: Energy, telecommunications, semiconductors, chemicals, construction

Controlling family: The Chey family. Chey Tae-won is the chairman.

Mr. Chey was convicted of embezzlement in 2013 and pardoned two years later.

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Lee still may emerge unscathed. He argues that he didn’t commit bribery and that, instead, he is the victim of extortion. Samsung said in a statement that it neither paid bribes nor sought favors, and said the truth would come to light in court.

Continue reading the main story

But Mr. Lee’s troubles — he was arrested, unprecedented for the leader of South Korea’s largest company, before he was indicted — were a jolt to those who assumed Samsung could once again turn to its political ties for help.

Continue reading the main story

Samsung, which means “three stars” in Korean, has long prospered from politics. Founded by a grandfather of Mr. Lee as a small fish and produce trader in 1938, it branched out into new businesses after the Korean War, including textiles, sugar and alcohol — and later, in 1969, electronics.

The expansion was, in many respects, funded by the government. Its military dictator, Park Chung-hee, wanted to transform South Korea into a country that made what it needed and exported the rest. At the same time, Mr. Park and his successors faced pressure from the country’s struggling populace to get tough on businesses that were seen as profiting from the government’s efforts to kick-start the economy.

Continue reading the main story

The two sides struck a compromise. Mr. Park allowed Mr. Lee’s grandfather and other business leaders to keep their wealth. In return, he urged them to invest in the country’s economic development and to back his push to make South Korea an export powerhouse. To help, he plied them with cheap bank loans, beneficial “buy Korea” policies and other inducements.

This business-government partnership helped wealthy business leaders and their families squeeze out smaller businesses and international competitors. Those groups came to be known as chaebol, or “rich clan” in Korean, and they dominate South Korea’s economic life to this day. The nation’s top 10 chaebol generate combined annual revenue equivalent to 80 percent of South Korea’s total economic output, according to analyst estimates.

“To South Koreans, chaebol have two faces,” said Kim Sang-jo, an economist at Hansung University in Seoul and an authority on Samsung. “On one hand, chaebol symbolize corrupt ties between business and politics, so people call for reforming chaebol. On the other hand, the economy is so heavily dependent on chaebol that people fear that shaking them too much might make them collapse.”

“South Korean people,” he added, “have never had a chance to learn how a modern globalized company should be run.”

Continue reading the main story

Jay Y. Lee’s father, Lee Kun-hee, became Samsung’s chairman after his father, Lee Byung-chull, died in 1987. He faced an immediate challenge: South Korea’s economy had become one of the most successful in Asia, but abroad its products were seen as cheap and unreliable.

Continue reading the main story

In a move that is now part of Samsung’s internal lore, Lee Kun-hee told his (mostly male) executives to “change everything except your wife and kids” and worked to improve Samsung’s quality. He brought in foreign experts. When one batch of phones turned out to be defective, in 1995, he gathered thousands of them into a pile at one of Samsung’s factories and set them on fire. The effort worked. Today Samsung is one of a very few electronics makers to command premium prices for its high-end televisions, smartphones and kitchen appliances.

Continue reading the main story

But Samsung also found itself repeatedly entangled in some of South Korea’s biggest corruption scandals. Lee Kun-hee was twice convicted, first of bribery and then of tax evasion. Each time, he received a suspended prison term and was later pardoned by the president.

In 2014, Lee Kun-hee had a heart attack and disappeared from public view. Samsung has said he is incapacitated, but it hasn’t released details. Still, thanks to a powerful group of executives and advisers, the Lee family’s grip on Samsung remained unchallenged.

Photo

Jay Y. Lee, a vice chairman of Samsung and de facto chairman of the company, arriving for questioning last month at the office of a special prosecutor investigating a corruption scandal in Seoul. Credit Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Continue reading the main story

A New Generation

When Lee Kun-hee’s son, Jay Y. Lee, now 48, took effective reins of the family empire, he didn’t do it alone.

The Lee family’s ownership in the various Samsung companies isn’t clear because many are not publicly traded, but it is widely believed to hold only small minority stakes. Instead, it controls the companies through loyal executives, as well as through interlocking contracts and shareholdings between the companies and other shadowy links.

At Samsung, some of the most loyal executives staffed the corporate strategy office. The office linked Samsung’s chairman with a host of professional executives who run dozens of individual Samsung subsidiaries, which together now employ a half-million people globally. But the office had a less publicized role: It worked to enable the Lee family to pull off the dynastic transfer of control over Samsung’s management.

Mr. Lee, polite and casual where his father could be remote and distant, by title a Samsung vice chairman, had the appearance of a with-it executive who wanted to bring Samsung into the modern era. Though Samsung’s electronics arm made cutting-edge hardware, it was largely missing out on the boom in mobile apps and online services. He also believed that Samsung’s strict corporate culture was holding back innovation.

In a few ways, under Mr. Lee, Samsung began to loosen up. He began a campaign to discourage managers from using harsh language with underlings, a common occurrence in South Korean offices. He also pledged to cut meetings and office hours, encouraged workers to challenge their bosses, and barred employees from using hierarchical titles in addressing one another — a norm in the South Korean corporate world. The initiative, heavily touted by the company, was called Start-Up Samsung.

Continue reading the main story

But critics still saw a top-down approach. For example, the company announced Start-Up Samsung with a coordinated pledge from top executives.

Continue reading the main story

Some current and former employees, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs, said pressure from the top has only grown worse under Mr. Lee. Samsung’s phone business — which was losing market share in China and elsewhere to cheap and increasingly sophisticated Chinese products made by Huawei and OnePlus — had made gains against Apple at the top end of the smartphone market. Hoping to capitalize, Samsung executives rushed to get its most powerful phone yet, the Galaxy Note 7, on the market before Apple introduced its new iPhone 7.

The result was disaster. First, a few Note 7 phones caught fire. Then, after an embarrassing and costly recall, some new versions caught on fire too. In an unusual move in the gadget business, Samsung pulled the phone from the market and canceled it. Kim Sang-jo, the Hansung University economist, and other outside experts blamed Mr. Lee and the corporate strategy office for the Note 7 debacle, saying they pushed big goals without listening to lower-level managers.

At the same time, the corporate strategy office was coming under fire for another move, a deal that would strengthen the family’s hold on Samsung — but one that would also engulf it in scandal.

Continue reading the main story

Turmoil at the Top

Under that office, Samsung pushed a merger of two of its units, Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T. Many outside shareholders opposed the move, which would cement Mr. Lee’s control over the whole conglomerate.

The trick was getting government approval — and to win it, prosecutors say, Mr. Lee and the corporate strategy office broke the law.

Continue reading the main story

According to prosecutors, Mr. Lee met with South Korea’s president, Park Geun-hye, three times in an effort to cement the deal and smooth Mr. Lee’s rise to power. In return, they say, Ms. Park, who has been impeached, asked Mr. Lee to support two foundations controlled by her secret confidante, a woman named Choi Soon-sil. According to prosecutors, Mr. Lee and members of Samsung’s corporate strategy office gave foundations and businesses linked to Ms. Choi $38 million. Samsung’s contributions to Ms. Choi included an $900,000 horse for her equestrian daughter.

Photo

Lee Kun-hee, the former Samsung Group chairman and the father of Jay Y. Lee, the company’s de facto chairman, leaves after his trial for tax evasion at a Seoul court in 2008. He was handed a suspended three-year jail term. Credit Jo Yong-hak/Reuters

The country’s national pension fund, a major shareholder of the two Samsung companies, approved the deal. According to prosecutors, the completed merger increased the stock value of the Lee family by at least $758 million. The country’s national pension fund lost at least $123 million on the deal.

Continue reading the main story

In a statement, Samsung said shareholders of both companies approved the deal before any donations were made. But it also said it introduced measures to manage donations, including greater public disclosure and more reviews by executives and directors.

Continue reading the main story

Ms. Choi’s relationship with Ms. Park last year ignited a nationwide scandal. Ms. Choi, who has no formal government title, was reported to have been involved with writing Ms. Park’s speeches, choosing top government officials and even selecting her outfits. As the scandal spread, the alleged bribes came to the attention of prosecutors.

For many South Koreans, the scandal resonates. Ms. Park, who could soon be removed from office, is the daughter of the dictator who gave Mr. Lee’s family the support to broaden Samsung into the giant it is today. It also underscores the perception that today’s chaebol leaders are hurting more than they are helping the country.

Others have said that the company culture has grown more strict since Mr. Lee’s father was incapacitated and pressures on the company to perform well under Mr. Lee grew.

Continue reading the main story

“They forgot their fathers’ and grandfathers’ entrepreneurship,” said Mr. Moon, the opposition leader, referring to Mr. Lee and other third-generation chaebol leaders, “and chose to make easy money.”

Stung by the scandal, Samsung closed the corporate strategy office. Skeptics point out that Samsung has done that before. Mr. Lee’s father disbanded the office when he ran into legal trouble, only to re-establish it under its current name once those troubles blew over. Its functions may simply migrate to another part of the empire, they say.

“The mission right now is to save Jay Y. Lee,” said Chang Sea-jin, a professor at the National University of Singapore. “It’s like ‘Saving Private Ryan.’”

Samsung said in a statement that its companies would be managed independently by its chief executives and directors.

Continue reading the main story

But there is reason to believe this time could be different.

Already Mr. Lee has been punished more than his father, who never spent any time in jail. The case also implicates South Korea’s president, while approval ratings for her pro-business party have plummeted, meaning political protection from the top is less likely. And public anger about collusion between companies and the government has never been greater, with protests breaking out this year.

Continue reading the main story

It isn’t clear whether somebody else may emerge to lead Samsung. Lee Boo-jin, Mr. Lee’s sister and the country’s richest woman, runs the Samsung affiliate Hotel Shilla, which also operates duty-free shops. With her brother in jail, some analysts speculated that she might try to increase her profile within the vast corporate empire. But most analysts say Samsung’s complicated hierarchy is already dominated by executives loyal to Mr. Lee.

Continue reading the main story

While analysts warn it isn’t likely anything will immediately change, Samsung is undoubtedly facing a new level of pressure and scrutiny.

“The thing about Samsung is, it’s a giant wound-up ball of yarn of cross-holdings,” said Geoffrey Cain, the author of a coming book on Samsung. “The setup is so complicated that sometimes I wonder if a group of smart people could find a way to tug at the right connection and find a way to loosen it up, to unravel it a bit, just to see if they could pull it away from the company.”

He added, “That’s never happened in Korea before.”

Continue reading the main story

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

[opedguy]

Trump Fakes News Never Stops

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), June. 1, 2021.--Kept in the news by the left-leaning press, 74-year-old President Donald Trump won’t go quietly into the night, not because he’s grabbing headlines but because the media continues its yellow journalism.  Trump was impeached twice by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) largely because of her vendetta against the president.  Pelosi was so intemperate when it came to Trump, she ripped up his 2020 State of the Union Speech on national TV.  Pelosi and her Democrat minions did everything possible to destroy Trump, impeaching him twice both on questionable charges.  First, Pelosi accused Trump of a quid pro quo with 43-year-old Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and second, accused the former president of “incitement of insurrection.”  Both impeachment counts failed because they were both baseless, because neither of the impeachment counts made and sense.   

          Trump’s four years in office were marked by Democrats and the media trying-and-convicting him of Russian collusion based on former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bogus opposition research.  Trump spent four years defending scurrilous accusations and the press.  Nothing changed at the end with Democrats and press accusing Trump of the “big lie” that voter fraud kept him from a second term.  Democrats and the press ignore universal mail-in ballots voter fraud, accusing Republicans of voter suppression if every man, woman and teenager don’t get mail-in ballots.  So when Democrats accuse Trump of the “big lie,” there’s no way Trump can prove voter fraud because of universal mail-in ballots.  Former Chapman University Law professor John Eastman, who wrote the Texas brief to the Supreme Court, said it was impossible to detect voter fraud with mail-in ballots.    

         New fake reports from the New York Times claims Trump has been telling associates that he’ll be reinstated into the White House by August, once GOP audits in Arizona and George prove that massive voter fraud took place.  Trump has become the boogey man for the Democrat Party, continuing to demonize the ex-president.  But when it comes to new information about how the U.S. press spread Chinese Communist Party propaganda about the origin of the deadly novel coronavirus, only fake news.  All U.S. and foreign press coverage for the origin of the Covid-19 global pandemic regurgitated the Chinese Communist Party.  Chinese officials change their story about the origin of the virus.  One day, the virus occurred naturally in a seafood or wet market. Next day, Chinese officials insist the U.S. military planted the virus in Wuhan.  Yet the U.S. and foreign press discredit the lab-leak theory. 

            No one in the liberal press makes up more fake news that New York Times Maggie Haberman.  She’s the first one to report that Trump thinks he’ll be reinstated as president in Aug., while, at the same time, the last one to report that China manufactured, with foreign help, the deadly novel coronavirus in a bio-weapons lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Habberman accepts left-wing propgaganda as “science” but when it comes to former President Trump saying April 30, 2020 that the virus was made in a Chinese lab, it’s a baseless conspiracy theory.  To Haberman, anything she could write to discredit Trump and help78-year-old Joe Biden get elected was her New York Times duty.  Forget about the truth, all that mattered was advancing the Democrat political agenda to get Trump out of office.  Well, the liberal press succeeded at getting rid of Trump and destroyed U.S. journalism.     

        Reporting on Trump thinking he’ll be reinstated as president is the pinnacle of fake news.  Who cares what Trump thinks when he’s on the threshold of getting indicted by U.S. Atty. Cyrus Vance Jr. in the Southern District of New York for various white collar crimes connected to the Trump Organization.  Whether any of the charges stick is anyone’s guess.  Haberman likes to quote, if you can believe it, right wing nut jobs My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, former White House counsel Sidney Powell and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon.  What type of news cites right-wing lunatics?  Only anti-Trump publications like the New York Times, Washington Post or broadcast outlets like CNN or MSNBC make up fake news to fill in programming.  No one believes that Trump will be reinstated president.  There’s simply no provision in the U.S. Constitution to overturn a certified election.        

     When it comes to spurious statements about Trump or his sick followers making up things about getting reinstated in the White House, it’s fake news not fit to print anywhere, even the New York Times.  But with mounting evidence that the deadly novel coronavirus was made in a Wuhan lab, it’s time for the media to admit they’ve played politics with the facts, preventing the public from hearing the truth.  New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC, never told the truth about the lab-leak theory because it was backed by Trump. If Trump says black, the media says white, regardless of the truth.  Newspapers and broadcast outlets have to get back to the main mission of reporting the news, regardless of whom it helps or hurts politically.  When it comes to today’s “big lie,” it’s not about the 2020 election, it’s about the First Amendment that guarantees free speech, not propaganda. 

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. Reply  Reply All  Forward

[thisdaynews]

Roger Stone sentenced to over three years in prison

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/roger-stone-sentenced-to-over-three-years-in-prison/

Roger Stone sentenced to over three years in prison

Stone, who passed on a chance to address the courtroom, stood silently with his attorneys for nearly 45 minutes while the judge explained the reasoning behind her sentence. The punishment, she said, grew in large part from the severity of his attempts to stymie the Russia probe, violations of a gag order limiting his speech during the pre-trial proceedings and for making a threat to the judge through social media.

“He was not prosecuted for standing up for the president,” Jackson added in her closing remarks. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”

Jackson’s sentence for Stone — among the most severe to-date in a case originating from special counsel Robert Mueller — came a week after his potential punishment triggered a furor at the Justice Department.

Stone’s case has become a flashpoint for broader concerns about political meddling in high-profile legal cases. Trump has been using his Twitter bully pulpit to repeatedly harangue the Justice Department over its handling of the case, sparking concerns that the president influenced Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to overrule his own prosecutors and request a lower sentence for Stone — a charge Barr denies. The situation has left many in the legal world wondering whether Trump’s refusal to scale back his public punditry, despite Barr’s own public pleas, could lead the attorney general to resign.

Jackson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, jumped at the chance to press one of the newly-assigned prosecutors, John Crabb, about the issue as he delivered the government’s final comments.

“I want to apologize to the court for the confusion the government caused with respect to sentencing,” Crabb said.

During his brief statement to the court, the prosecutor appeared to go out of his way to push back against Trump’s attacks. Crabb said the prosecutors who filed the original recommendation that Stone go to prison for between seven and nine years did not defy their superiors or act inappropriately.

“I want to make clear to the court that the confusion was not caused by the original trial team,” he said, adding that it was filed by those prosecutors “in good faith.” Under questioning by Jackson, Crabb confirmed that the original recommendation was approved by a former aide to Barr who was recently installed as U.S. Attorney in Washington, Tim Shea.

Crabb said the confusion stemmed from miscommunication between Barr and Shea, but Crabb declined to elaborate. When the judge asked whether Crabb wrote the revised recommendation, he demurred again, saying that — despite his earlier comments — he was not permitted to discuss “internal deliberations.”

While Trump has denounced the decision to prosecute Stone, Crabb took a contrary position, echoing comments Barr made in an interview last week, where he called the prosecution of Stone “righteous.”

“This is a righteous prosecution and the offenses of conviction are serious,” Crabb said.

It wasn’t the first time last week’s internal DOJ fireworks came up, either.

Jackson first alluded to the recent dramatic events in the case just minutes into the hearing. She touched on Barr’s unusual intervention to reverse the initial sentencing recommendation, which led the four trial prosecutors to withdraw from the case and one of them to quit the department altogether.

Without mentioning any names, the judge suggested that some critics of the original recommendation seemed unusually moved by Stone’s plight, even though the guidelines that DOJ followed — first adopted in the 1980s to rein in judges’ discretion — sometimes produce extraordinarily long sentences.

“For those of you new to this and who woke up last week to the fact that the…guidelines are harsh, I can assure you that defense attorneys and many judges have been making that point for a long time, but we don’t usually succeed in getting the government to agree,” Jackson scoffed.

Later, Jackson noted that the government’s decision to argue that Stone should get less prison time than federal sentencing guidelines recommend was a definite deviation from standard practices adopted by the Trump administration.

“It’s not just a question of good faith, but whether it was fully consistent with current DOJ policy,” she said. “The current policy of this Department of Justice is to charge and prosecute the most serious offense available in order to get the highest guideline level.”

Crabb acknowledged that is “generally” DOJ’s current policy and that line prosecutors are not permitted to deviate from it without approval from higher-ups.

And while Trump has suggested the judge has been cruel towards his allies like former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Crabb came to the judge’s defense Thursday, saying “the government has the utmost confidence” in her, and praising her “thoughtful analysis and fair sentences” in related cases.

Jackson also declared to the courtroom that Stone’s crimes were not without impact. She said that his obstruction stymied the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee’s probe into Russian election interference, which concluded in a highly-criticized April 2018 report that there was no evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Moscow.

“It led to an inaccurate, incomplete and incorrect report,” Jackson said.

The judge also said that when making her decision, she took into account Stone’s social media attacks on the court during his prosecution that raised security concerns at the courthouse.

“This is intolerable to the administration of justice and the courts should not sit idly by, shrug its shoulders and just say it’s ‘Roger being Roger,’” Jackson said.

Stone, 67, has sought to avoid any prison time. During Thursday’s hearings, his defense argued he had no criminal record and should get a reprieve because he’s a family man about to become a great-grandfather.

“Consider the full scope of the person who stands before you in sentencing,” said Seth Ginsberg, a new defense lawyer brought on for sentencing.

“Mr. Stone has many admirable qualities,” Ginsberg added, urging Jackson to look beyond the “larger than life persona” Stone plays on TV. He noted Stone’s charity work to help veterans, animal welfare and NFL players suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

Despite Stone’s typical passion for or the spotlight, Ginsberg said the high-profile trial and its attendant publicity had taken a toll on the defendant and his family.

“The process really to some extent has already been the punishment,” Ginsberg insisted.

But Jackson in her closing statement before reading her sentence unloaded on Stone’s defense team for acting so dismissively about the charges during the November trial.

“The truth still exists,” she said. “The truth still matters.”

Stone won’t have to start serving his sentence right away. He’s seeking a new trial on the grounds that one of the jurors had a preconceived bias — a decision that Jackson is expected to address in the coming weeks.

Even with the delay, Stone’s fate appears like it now rests with Trump saving an ally with whom he shares a four-decade relationship.

Trump has been arguing in recent weeks that Stone’s crimes were harmless.

“Nobody even knows what he did,” the president said, while inaccurately alleging that the prosecution was based on “a tweet.”

Still, the president has been coy about any plans to offer clemency to Stone, even implausibly claiming to reporters on Tuesday: “I haven’t given it any thought.”

However, Trump did send another clear signal this week of his willingness to exercise his clemency power, by issuing a string of 11 pardons and commutations to other convicted criminals, including high-profile figures like the former Democratic governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, and junk-bond king Michael Milken.

“It’s not a question of if,” a former senior administration official who remains in close touch with the president and senior aides said when asked about the prospect of a Stone pardon. “It’s when.”

By law, Stone faced a maximum possible term of 50 years in prison: five years on each of the false-statement counts, five years for obstruction of Congress and as much as 20 years for witness tampering.

However, judges typically sentence in accordance with complex federal sentencing guidelines that tend to call for punishment far less than the maximum for first-time offenders and in many white-collar cases.

The severity of the initial sentencing recommendation stemmed largely from prosecutors’ treatment of several statements by Stone as genuine threats of violence or, at a minimum, having the potential to encourage others to act out. At issue were barbs Stone unleashed at a longtime associate, Randy Credico, as he was mulling how to respond to congressional and Justice Department investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“Prepare to die cocksucker,” Stone wrote to Credico in one colorful message. Another seemed to threaten Credico’s beloved therapy animal, promising to “take that dog away from you.”

Credico warned Stone at the time that he had “crossed a red line” by threatening the dog, but at Stone’s trial Credico said he considered Stone a “dog person” and did not think Stone was serious. Credico also sent Jackson a letter last month urging her not to send Stone to jail. The comedian and talk show host said he did not think Stone posed a “direct physical threat,” although Credico did say at the trial that he feared that Stone’s outlandish invective could prompt others to violence.

The prosecutors who handled Stone’s case at trial said the comments were serious enough to trigger an enhancement that added about four to five years to Stone’s recommended sentence. However, the revised proposal Barr submitted said that while the add-on for threats of violence was “perhaps technically applicable,” it would result in a sentence that was “unduly high,” given the facts of Stone’s case.

The sentence for Stone — “I have nothing to say,” Stone told reporters when leaving the courtroom — is one of the most serious handed out in a case connected to the Mueller probe.

Manafort got seven-and-a-half years total after a jury convicted him of financial fraud and then he later pleaded guilty to separate charges related to witness tampering and his lobbying work. Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign deputy chairman, is serving 45 days of jail over a series of weekends after pleading guilty to a similar suite of crimes as Manafort. Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen is also serving a three-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to tax fraud and false-statement charges.

Read More

[maxwellyjordan]

Symposium: Corruption is not a crime

Ellen S. Podgor is the Gary R. Trombley Family White-Collar Crime Research Professor and Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law.

The circumstances surrounding the “Bridgegate” controversy are appalling. The thought that automobile drivers and their passengers were subjected to a “crippling gridlock” in an alleged effort to retaliate against a mayor who failed to endorse then-Governor Chris Christie in his reelection bid is beyond comprehension. Likewise, lying about the purpose of the lane realignment is the height of unethical conduct. It is easy to conclude that the conduct involved is wrong. But conduct that is wrong, unethical or potentially harmful is not necessarily criminal under existing federal laws. This is especially important when the conduct relates to politics.

Many perceive corruption to be a crime. In fact, however, corruption is not a federal crime, unless one is speaking about corruption of seamen and confederating with pirates, activities that are prohibited under the only federal statute in Title 18 of the U.S. Code that actually includes the term “corruption” in the title of the statute. A host of federal statutes beyond the criminal code use the term “corruption” with regard to programs that encourage good governance, such as providing aid to countries in order to combat corruption. And, of course, sentencing provisions reference corruption offenses. One might find the term “corruption” in legislative findings regarding extortionate credit transactions, for example. So too, there is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but the conduct outlined in these statutes is limited, with certain parties, such as foreign officials, excluded from prosecution. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act includes an entire definition statute that covers terms such as “racketeering activity” and what is meant by the term “enterprise.” But there is nothing to tell us what “corrupt” means because the term is not included in the description of prohibited activities under RICO.

Although some federal statutes do require a corrupt intent or a corrupt act, corruption by itself is not an offense. Corruption is a sociological concept with a long history that sometimes includes discussion of fraud. As with many such terms, like white-collar crime for example, laws have been developed to address conduct that falls within the sociological framework. But to claim that corruption or white-collar crime should by itself be punishable puts us back to a day of common-law criminal concepts and not the statute-based society that we have become. As aptly stated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Mueller report, “collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.” And just as Mueller limited his review to potential crimes existing in the federal code, so should the Supreme Court focus on the specific language found in the applicable statutes under review in Kelly v. United States.

The statutes involved in Kelly cover “theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds” and “wire fraud.” Both statutes are relatively new to the construct of fraud statutes that emanate from an 1872 mail-fraud statute that came with no legislative history and was a mere single provision (Section 301) of the recodification of the Postal Act. Federal program fraud was added to the criminal code in 1984 and wire fraud was added in 1952. And a congressional committee raised concerns about the breadth of the wire-fraud statute when passing the later bank-fraud statute, explaining that the “Committee believes that while the additional activity that could thus be brought within the purview of the language might well be reprehensible, and probably should be criminal, due process and notice argue for prohibiting such conduct explicitly, rather than through court expansion of coverage.”

Both the federal-program-fraud and wire-fraud statutes have enormous breadth, and in these and similar “corruption-related” statutes, the Supreme Court has appropriately struck down prosecutorial attempts to stretch the statutes using novel theories. We have seen this is in a host of Supreme Court decisions: McNally v. United States, finding that intangible property did not meet the definition of “money or property” in a 1909 statutory amendment; Cleveland v. United States, finding that licenses were not property; Skilling v. United States, requiring that bribery or kickbacks were necessary for honest services fraud; McCormick v. United States, finding that the Hobbs Act requires a quid pro quo when involving campaign contributions; and McDonnell v. United States, finding that holding a meeting or hosting an event does not by itself meet the “official act” requirement of the statute at issue. And, of course, there are other Supreme Court decisions that have reined in prosecutors who decided to prosecute acts that may be deceitful or corrupt, although less convincingly statutorily criminal.

In Kelly, the court will need to decide whether the conduct of Bridget Kelly fits into the elements of these two criminal statutes, and, if the statutes are too expansive, whether to limit them as it did in Skilling, or to use the longstanding rule of lenity, which favors the defense when there are two possible constitutional interpretations of a statute. Hopefully, the court will remember that its role is to interpret the statute and not subject the law to “invention,” as duly noted by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in his Skilling concurrence.

In this case, there are no allegations of bribery or kickbacks, a fact that precluded the government in a post-Skilling environment from using the honest-services-fraud statute. Instead, prosecutors resorted to the generic wire-fraud statute, requiring the government to meet the statutory element of “money or property.” And in a convoluted maneuver that only a trapeze artist could accomplish, the government attempts to show that the cost of extra employees to staff the toll lanes and prepare the traffic-study report that the government argues was a mask for improper political motivation constituted a deprivation of “money or property.” One has to ask whether every study that has proved to be ineffective in state government could suffice for meeting the “money or property�� element, and whether the Supreme Court will allow future prosecutors to indict individuals whose true motivation for a decision is political.

It is particularly important to restrict the statute to its express terms in this case. People all know that murder, rape, robbery, arson and burglary are crimes. They know that transgressing the statutes that proscribe these common-law offenses can result in jail time or other criminal punishment.

Less clear and more amorphous is conduct related to politics. After all, would we want to have made then-presidential candidate George H. W. Bush’s statement – “read my lips, no new taxes” – followed by an election and then new taxes – a crime? One could easily claim that Bush’s subjective intent was to get elected. And he did make his promise on national television, so the wires were used. But it would be absurd to find this statement covered by the wire-fraud statute’s language.

And do we want to make the mayor who prioritizes snow removal in one area of a city over another a federal criminal? Whatever the mayor’s stated reason for the plowing schedule, one could easily argue that her constituency in the first-plowed area produces more favorable votes and that therefore she committed fraud in the selection process. And if the selection happened to require additional hours or personnel, would that be sufficient for a claim of a deprivation of “money or property” for purposes of the wire-fraud statute, under which a mere interstate telephone call or email easily triggers federal jurisdiction? The bottom line is that these are regulatory matters, and the Supreme Court in Cleveland clearly precluded the use of a fraud statute to criminalize regulatory activity.

If politicians’ lies are merely a subterfuge for their actual reasons in decision-making, then a ruling for the government in Kelly would put many elected officials at risk of political indictment. The Supreme Court recognized in McCormick the importance of holding the language of the statute to a strict interpretation in the political sphere. It is equally important for the court to do so here. This is a time for the public to weigh in on corrupt politicians through elections, not for the Supreme Court to criminalize potentially political conduct in a way that might give additional power to federal prosecutors.

The post Symposium: Corruption is not a crime appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/symposium-corruption-is-not-a-crime/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[gyrlversion]

Barr will release findings from Mueller report around 3:45 pm today

Attorney General William Barr will release the ‘principal conclusions’ from Robert Mueller’s Russia probe to Capitol Hill at approximately 3:45 pm today, according to reports.

‘DOJ has just sent us a very brief letter about the Mueller report, which we will share shortly,’ House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler tweeted Sunday afternoon. 

Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein arrived at the Justice Department Sunday morning to finish their work in summarizing Mueller’s report for lawmakers.

While they worked, Robert Mueller attended church Sunday a mere 500 feet from the White House.   

Mueller and his wife were spotted at St. John’s Episcopal Church, the yellow stucco church across Lafayette Park from the White House where President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended service last Sunday. 

Robert Mueller and Ann Mueller attended St. John’s Episcopal Church, the yellow stucco church across Lafayette Park from the White House

Attorney General William Barr leaves his Virginia home to head to the Justice Department

Robert Mueller and Ann Mueller attended the same church President Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended last weekend

Barr’s motorcade arrives at the Justice Department on Sunday

But there has been no word on when or what he’ll deliver.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler said on ‘Fox News Sunday’ that he has not heard from the Justice Department how detailed or when he will receive a summary of Mueller’s findings. 

He will be one of the first lawmakers to receive it in his role as chairman. 

And President Trump returned to Twitter on Sunday for the first time since Mueller handed in his report but the president merely offered a cheerful greeting as the White House says it still has not seen the findings from the special counsel’s investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 election.

‘Good Morning, Have A Great Day!,’ the president wrote from Mar-a-Lago, where he is spending a long weekend with first lady Melania Trump and their son Barron.

‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!,’ he added, touting his signature campaign theme.

He headed to his Trump International Golf Course on Sunday morning after his tweets. 

Trump’s deputy communications director Hogan Gidley confirmed that, as of Sunday morning, the White House has not yet received or been briefed on the Mueller report. 

President Trump (right) played golf with Kid Rock (left) at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on Saturday

President Trump broke his Twitter silence Sunday

But he made no mention of the Mueller report

President Trump reads the newspaper while on his way to his golf course Sunday morning

The president still has not commented publicly on the report, which is in the hands of the Justice Department where Attorney General William Barr spent Saturday holed up reading its findings.

Those findings could land on Capitol Hill on Sunday where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called on them to be made public.

Democrats and Republicans alike are preparing their spin: Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she will reject any attempts by the Justice Department to hold a classified briefing on the report, which would prevent lawmakers from speaking about it in public. 

House Democrats are also threatening to use their subpoena power to speak to Mueller, Justice Department officials and obtain any underling documentation that contributed to the special counsel’s final report. 

And Republicans point out there are no further indictments coming out of Mueller’s probe, which they note is a win for the president. Although Mueller has wrapped up his investigation, the Southern District of New York – which is probing the president’s businesses – and other jurisdictions are still investigating cases that came from the special counsel’s initial prob. 

Democrats on Sunday pointed out that no matter what is revealed in Mueller’s findings, their investigation of the Trump and his administration will continue. 

Barr will deliver his report on Mueller’s findings to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees

Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler (left), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Adam Schiff (right), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said their investigations of Trump will continue

‘We know there was collusion,’ Nadler said on ‘Fox News Sunday.’ 

‘The Justice Department believes that as a matter of law, the president, no matter what the evidence, can never be indicted,’ Nadler said. ‘If that is the case then they can’t hold him accountable and the only institution that can hold the president accountable is Congress and Congress, therefore, needs the evidence in the information.’

He added: ‘The special counsel was looking and can only look for crimes. We have to protect the rule of law. We have to look for abuses of power. We have to look for obstructions of justice, we have to look for corruption in the exercise of power, which may not be crimes. They may be, but they may not be crimes. We have a much broader mandate and we have to exercise that mandate to protect the integrity of government and protect the integrity of liberty and the country.’ 

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee warned Sunday there is ‘significant evidence of collusion.’

‘There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,’ he said on ABC’s ‘This Week.’

‘The investigation is a criminal investigation. Congress’s responsibility is very different, and that is, it’s our responsibility to tell the American people these are the facts. This is what your president has done, this is what his key campaign and appointees have done, these are the issues that we need to take action on, this is potential compromise,’ he added.

Trump, who is spending the weekend at Mar-a-Lago, relaxed on Saturday, spending about five hours at his golf course

Trump (seen left with his lawyer, Emmet Flood, at Mar-a-Lago on Friday) has reportedly been in a good mood as word came down that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will likely not recommend any further indictments

President Trump is spending the weekend with first lady Melania Trump at Mar-a-Lago, they are seen here on Friday greeting Caribbean leaders, hours before the report was handed in

But the president has been notably silent since Mueller’s report – which he has repeated labeled a ‘witch hunt’ – was handed in to the Justice Department on Friday.

He relaxed on Saturday by hitting the links with rocker-rapper Kid Rock while his attorney general was seen arriving at his Virginia home after spending the day at the Justice Department reading the Mueller Report.

The president was photographed smiling next to the Bawitdaba crooner at his Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on Saturday.

Kid Rock, who posted the image on his Twitter account, was appropriately dressed for the occasion.

He wore a red sweater vest over a white collared shirt, which complemented his American-flag style slacks and what looked like a gold belt. 

Trump was standing next to him in his red ‘USA’ hat, white collared shirt, and blue slacks.

‘Another great day on the links!,’ the Michigan-born musician wrote.

‘Another great day on the links!,’ the Michigan-born musician wrote. ‘Thank you to POTUS for having me and to EVERYONE at Trump International for being so wonderful.’

‘Thank you to POTUS for having me and to EVERYONE at Trump International for being so wonderful.

‘What a great man, so down to earth and so fun to be with!!

‘KEEP AMERICA GREAT!!’

Kid Rock is an outspoken supporter of Republicans and was one of the first to back Trump during the GOP primary in 2015. He also considered running for the U.S. Senate seat from Michigan. 

Meanwhile, Barr was seen arriving at his home in McLean, Virginia on Saturday evening after he spent the day at the Justice Department reading over the Mueller Report.

Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein huddled at the Justice Department all day on Saturday to over Mueller’s findings.   

Attorney General William Barr (left) is seen arriving at his home in McLean, Virginia on Saturday evening

Trump waved to supporters from his motorcade on Saturday

A supporter salutes as the motorcade carrying President Donald Trump leaves Trump International Golf Club on Saturday

Trump spent about five hours on Saturday at his Trump International Golf Course with sunny skies above and a high of 77 degrees. 

Upon leaving the club shortly after 2 p.m., he was spotted smiling and waving to supporters who lined the motorcade route.   

On Friday, a senior Justice Department official said that Mueller will file no more indictments with federal courts, meaning the president, his inner circle of present and former confidants and his family members are out of immediate legal jeopardy.

Trump had already arrived at his Florida retreat on Friday afternoon when Barr revealed that he had received the report.

The president learned of the development as he sat on the tiled patio at Mar-a-Lago with the First Lady and their son Barron, according to CNN. 

Later, he appeared on stage at an fundraiser for the Palm Beach Republicans in the club’s ballroom, but did not mention the Mueller report in his remarks, according to the network. At the event, Senator Lindsey Graham called on the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton, sparking chants of ‘lock her up!’ 

President Trump spent Saturday and Sunday at his Trump International Golf Club; he’s seen in his motorcade on Sunday

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has turned in his report and has yet to speak publicly on his investigation

The White House has not received a copy of the report or been briefed on it, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said late Friday.

‘The next steps are up to Attorney General Barr, and we look forward to the process taking its course,’ Sanders said in a statement. 

Mueller, a DOJ employee, is obligated only to submit his report to Barr.

Barr decides what to make public.  

The post Barr will release findings from Mueller report around 3:45 pm today appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/barr-will-release-findings-from-mueller-report-around-345-pm-today/

[elizabethcariasa]

Things I’ve Learned About Fraud

After more than 20 years conducting fraud investigations, I have learned a lot about fraudsters, their methods, and the companies they work for.

Hotlines cut fraud losses in half. Anonymous reporting mechanisms like fraud hotlines decrease the cost of internal fraud. Employees are excellent watchdogs, and are more likely to report wrongdoing if they have a confidential way to report the information they possess. Research shows that companies with hotlines discover fraud schemes sooner and therefore lose less to internal fraud.

Sarbanes-Oxley mandated anonymous reporting mechanisms like hotlines for public companies. Private companies should do the same, since the hotlines have been proven to be effective. However, companies should not get a false sense of security from a hotline. There are many other fraud-prevention measures that companies should also implement.

Employees are very receptive to anti-fraud training. As I’ve mentioned, employees are typically very good watchdogs. They don’t like to see someone else on the take while they are putting in honest work. If they know what to look for, employees are likely to report misdeeds to management.

Therefore, anti-fraud training is usually very well-received by employees. They are anxious to learn what fraud looks like and feels like. During training, they often reflect on situations in the past that seemed suspicious. If they’d had anti-fraud training back then, they probably would have reported their suspicions to management.

It makes sense, therefore to provide basic anti-fraud training to everyone. Management can never predict who will see what, and it’s important for all employees to be armed with knowledge. More targeted anti-fraud training can be provided later to those employees who work in higher-risk areas of the company.

Teams of fraudsters steal more. A single thief at a company can only commit so much fraud. Even with access to assets and data, that person is limited in the amount that can be stolen because someone is usually watching over other parts of the business.

For example, one employee makes bank deposits, while a separate employee balances the bank account. This effectively verifies the bank deposits that the first employee was supposed to make. Alone, the employee making bank deposits is unable to steal without detection.

On the other hand, two or more people in collusion can commit more elaborate frauds for longer periods of time. Under a typical company’s system of controls, employees intentionally perform independent checks of one another. If two employees collude to override those independent checks, they can more easily defraud the company.

In the bank deposit example, the employee doing the bank deposits could join forces with the employee balancing the bank account. If they are successful, the first employee can steal money from the bank deposits while the second employee helps cover the theft during the bank reconciliation process. Thieves have a hard time keeping secrets. Someone, somewhere always knows about the fraud. Some thieves are simply arrogant and they need to brag about how clever they are. Others just plain can’t keep their mouths shut.

In addition to verbal clues, there are non-verbal clues that can give away a fraud. Thieves often can’t help but show off the items they’ve bought with the proceeds of fraud. Others take many unusual trips, often to casinos. Some fraudsters exhibit nervous behavior or become overly possessive of their work responsibilities. Pay strong attention to those clues and investigate further.

Don’t forget that even though teams of thieves can steal more than single perpetrators, they also have a harder time keeping the fraud under wraps. Two or three conspirators have a harder time keeping a secret than a single thief. The more mouths involved in a fraud, the more likely someone is to talk about the scheme.

Small frauds lead to bigger frauds. A planned one-time theft to fill a need or right a wrong can easily escalate into a full-blown fraud scheme. An employee who just intends to steal once finds out how easy it is, and that leads to repeat frauds. Each stolen customer payment or forged check gets progressively larger.

Even an employee who never intended to commit a fraud can be drawn into a scheme. She or he may notice that an accounting error went undetected and uncorrected. The right thing would be to notify management in order that the error can be corrected.

However, I have seen many honest employees turn dishonest in this situation. Instead of helping to correct the error and close the loophole, the employee may be tempted to take advantage of the breakdown in the company’s controls. Getting away with something small often emboldens previously honest employees, and a fraud of this type can escalate quickly.

Arrogance is often the downfall of a crook. I often say that arrogance gets in the way of the fraud. Crooks sometimes get so wrapped up in a feeling of invincibility, it causes them to get sloppy. They forget to cover their tracks or properly conceal the fraud. Deep down, the thief believes she or he will not be caught anyway, so being cautious is not the chief concern.

Sometimes white collar criminals get so arrogant that they push the limits of the scheme too far. Again, they come to believe that they are not going to be caught. They believe that even if they are caught, they will not be convicted of a crime.

Pushing the limits of a fraud or getting sloppy inevitably causes a scheme to unravel. Maybe the numbers get so high that computer software flags some items or the auditors start looking harder. Sometimes a critical phone call or piece of mail escapes the scammer. Many times arrogance plays a part in discovering the theft.

Victims of fraud aren’t necessarily smarter afterward. You would think that a victim of a fraud would be highly concerned with changing policies and procedures to prevent future incidents. I would expect a victim to at least be concerned with closing the loopholes the thief exploited.

Unfortunately, companies aren’t always willing to critically examine their anti-fraud controls after an investigation concludes. They consider the cost of the fraud and the high cost of investigating and litigating. No budget dollars may be left to help shore up controls.

This is one of the biggest mistakes a company can make. It is careless to leave loopholes open for future thieves. It also sends a bad message to everyone else in the company. Employees are now aware that there are defects in the system and that the company has not fixed them. That’s like sending out an invitation to steal.

Of all the things that companies can do after discovering a fraud, reworking the anti-fraud controls is probably the most important. Management must learn from the mistakes of the past, otherwise the company will be victimized again by employees.

[populistmedia]

Revenge On Roger Stone Continues: Collusion Isn't A Crime But Conspiracy Is

Thursday, a long time friend of President Donald J. Trump was interviewed about his experiences with the Democrat's "Russian Collusion" conspiracies, which dominate their ability to accept the results of the 2016 Presidential race, and isolate them from celebrating historic improvements for the American people. "Wikileaks did have a devastating effect on the Clinton campaign.  Now Democrats hate Wikileaks, they loved them once.  I never received any hacked emails," said Roger Jason Stone, Jr., champion of President Donald J. Trump. FULL INTERVIEW LISTEN HERE https://soundcloud.com/tedstew/roger-stone-on-active-measures-muellers-investigation Variety reported on the interview: Stone said, “should it come to it, I can prove that I never had any direct contact with Julian Assange in 2016 and I never received any allegedly hacked emails.” “I think it is possible that I will be framed, but I have no idea,” he added. “It is very clear how the system works. You find a low-level person who has done something wrong, and then you squeeze them to bear false witness against a bigger fish.” He said he had “serious questions about the constitutional authority of Mr. Mueller.” “I also have problems with a number of these prosecutors in terms of their personal bias or the nature of their appointment, and those questions will all get raised at an appropriate time if they are foolish enough to bringing an action against me,” he said. “I have no intention of just bending over. That I can assure you.” Read More "BOBBY THREE STICKS" As Populist Media reported, Stone is correct about the well-known tactics of Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III. We interviewed a DC lawyer who told us the legal foundation for Mueller to work in such a way. BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN: David Benowitz ,  speaking about the cornerstone of Mueller’s case, George Papadopoulos, is a  White-Collar Criminal Lawyer in DC, who said most interesting to him was that the Papadopoulos incitement was under seal and he had a cooperation agreement. “It will be interesting to see what comes out about what he did when he was under seal, he may have been wearing a wire. There is a lot more to come out, “ Benowitz said. “You give up a lot of rights when you plead guilty,” Benowitz said, signaling that he expected some juicy things to come out. Benowitz told Populist Wire about the provision of the law Part 5k-Departures which gives substantial assistance to authorities, that is most important in Federal criminal cases.  “If you cooperate with the prosecutor he or she can ask the judge for a lesser sentence. “Sentencing guidelines show the prosecutor has enormous power.  And Papadopoulos wanted to cooperate because he can plea down to probation. He has done well for himself with his cooperation agreement. He pled to one of the lowest charges,” said Benowitz Benowitz expects to see some major charges soon, perhaps even the crime of Treason, coming out of these indictments. “In the Thick book that talks about and describes crimes and enhancements there are guidelines like if you are using sophisticated means of influencing more than 5 people,  you have a higher sentence. That could be Treason in this case, which is a crime.  There is no crime called Collusion,” he said. Papadopoulos isn’t a major player in the administration. “It’s the little guy who knows a lot , who they go after” Benowitz said. TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1041330897948160002 STONE THE TARGET, WARFARE IN 2018: What they can't frame him with using Lawfare they will make into a movie, mostly likely to pressure Stone to "Roll" or "Flip" on Trump.  Surely someone who has known Trump for over 40 years has some information that political opponents would like to know. Who needs a judicial system or a representative Republic when Hollywood- cum- revenge politics is a tool to shape public opinion? The Democrats plan to impeach Trump on the pressure they create with subversive propaganda, that they use to shape public opinion. CULTURAL MARXISM IS THIS When all else fails for the Communist-Democrats, design and make the needed subversive propaganda.  Their Marxist tactics demand that the left demands control of the common culture narrative, the institutions and public opinion. Where the media and the Democrat party have failed to make their case for overthrowing the victory of the American people with Trump, a filmmaker has stepped in. Enter : said Subversive Marxist- Propaganda meant to overthrow a duly elected sitting president. WATCH: https://twitter.com/ActMeasuresDoc/status/1024988576881291265 WAS RUSSIAN COLLUSION ALL A SET UP? LEVERAGE? AN INSURANCE POLICY? Collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is. "I assume the movie is fiction, it claims Russian collusion. It has been established there was some Russian collusion.  That was all over the place- with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Trump campaigns.  The Russians were trying to sow discord, but that is not Russian collusion with the Trump campaign," Stone said in the interview. "I was not interviewed for the film.  Objective journalists ask your opinions, I would have met with this (filmmaker) but I never heard from him," said Stone. INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTING STONE That is convenient for subversive agents. The filmmaker does not investigate or cite Stone's sworn testimony about the statement highlighted in the film, they just lead their audience with a clip. The Washington Post reported on Stone's sworn testimony, from Stone's own written report. BACK TO THE INTERVIEW Variety reported: "A clip of Stone is featured in the new documentary “Active Measures,” in a scene from August 2016, in which he tells the Broward Republican Organization that he had “communicated with Assange.” Stone was not interviewed for the documentary but said what he meant by the remark was that he had an intermediary. “I was told by the New York radio personality Randy Credico, when Assange went on CNN in June of 2016, and said that he had a treasure trove of documents on Hillary Clinton and that he would release them,” Stone said. “Now Mr. Credico never told me the source of those documents and the content of them, only that they existed and would roil the presidential race, and they did,” Stone said. Credico, who has been an advocate for Assange, spoke to the Mueller grand jury last week, and told MSNBC, “most of the questions were about Roger Stone.” He said Assange came up “peripherally.” He declined to get into specifics of what was the subject matter of the questions about Stone," Variety reported. ACCUSED: BUT... STONE MET ASSANGE "I never had any direct contact with Jullian Assange.  The filmmaker makes another error. There is no proof that Julian Assange is an agent of Russia. Assange is a journalist, he got information from a whistleblower and printed it," Stone said. "The Democrats loved Wikileaks when they were exposing President Bush," Stone said. https://twitter.com/jacerosea/status/1024892991394131968 ACCUSED:  BUT.. STONE ODDLY PREDICTED PODESTA EXPOSE' "The Podestas' time in the barrel will come." Stone posted on Twitter, which the Democrats have morphed to mean he knew about the future Podesta's email scandal. https://twitter.com/TrumpWontWin/status/1015977465586388992 However, who didn't know about Podestas' dramas? Flashback... https://twitter.com/politico_watch/status/1040935099754336256 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/11272024162 https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/38284105124679680     MEDIA INQUIRY LOOKS LIKE THIS: https://twitter.com/happit1776/status/1041338720421588992 It was ever thus... https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/65135570191519744 Still, in 2018, Developing... Read the full article

[blogcompetnetall]

Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice

Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice http://www.nature-business.com/business-manafort-and-cohen-have-left-trump-at-a-precipice/

Business

(CNN)CNN Opinion asked expert legal analysts and commentators to weigh in with their takeaways from the Paul Manafort verdict and the Michael Cohen saga: what it all means and what comes next. The views expressed in these commentaries are solely those of the authors.

What does it say about the President? After all, aren’t we judged by the company we keep?

Up until now, Republicans in Congress have had little appetite to seriously investigate Trump, much less utter the dreaded “I” word: impeachment. But Congress’ blind support of the President could change drastically if proof is leaked, or otherwise surfaced by way of documentary evidence, that proves that Trump “coordinated and directed” Cohen to violate the law. Congress will then be seen as supporting an alleged criminal. And that can’t be good politically — especially in a midterm election year.

Meanwhile, Manafort’s close association with Trump does not bode well for the President. The former head of the Trump campaign is now a convicted felon. Manafort’s lies, misrepresentation, deceit and hubris landed him in this position. One can only wonder whether another bird with the same feathers will suffer a similar fate.

This leads to even more potentially bad news for the President. The upcoming midterm elections could very well change the dynamics of Congress by placing control in the hands of Democrats. Should this occur, the House will most assuredly go after the President and institute impeachment proceedings for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” All it takes is a majority vote in the House to impeach. And if the Democrats have control, it would mean they have such a majority.

That would then kick the case over to the Senate for an Impeachment trial, in which 67 senators (or two-thirds), would be needed to convict Trump, thereby removing him from office. That’s a heavy and unlikely lift indeed. But perhaps it will get much lighter if there is cold proof the President is an alleged criminal.

In that case, Republicans will have a hard time looking the other way.

Tuesday could mark the beginning of the end of Trump’s presidency. A day that will go down in history indeed.

Joey Jackson is a criminal defense attorney and a legal analyst for CNN and HLN.

Caroline Polisi: Manafort’s trial sheds light on Mueller’s potential collusion case

The refrain from the White House over the course of Paul Manafort’s bank- and tax-fraud trial — the first in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — is that the charges “have nothing to do” with the President or the Trump campaign. In fact, noting that some of the conduct charged stems back 12 years, the President

tweeted

, “These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion — a Hoax!,” an assertion meant to buttress his argument that the entire Russia investigation is a “witch hunt” (a phrase he has used so often, it’s become something of a tagline).

And while it may be true that the charges faced by Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, had relatively little to do with his time on the campaign, they allowed us to learn at least two important pieces of information that shed light into the opaque abyss that is Robert Mueller’s potential case of “collusion.”

1) Manafort was heavily in debt heading into his time working for the Trump campaign for free, the obvious implication of which is that he was hoping to leverage his position for his own economic benefit; and

2) He did take at least one definitive step toward using his position as a bargaining chip for his own personal benefit. As was revealed over the course of his trial, Manafort sought to offer a banker, from whom he’d been accused of fraudulently seeking loans, a role in the Trump administration. In the days after Trump’s election, the bank began issuing loans to Manafort that would eventually

total $16 million

.

Manafort will likely be serving prison time for these crimes, and he faces yet another trial in September. We may learn even more clues about the larger Russia investigation in that trial, no matter how much the President cries “witch hunt.”

Caroline Polisi is a federal and white collar criminal defense attorney in New York, a frequent CNN contributor and is of counsel at Pierce Bainbridge. Follow her on Twitter: @CarolinePolisi

.

Julian Zelizer: Trump’s alleged Teflon isn’t quite so durable

The legal and the political stories about the Trump presidency are converging. The Cohen and Manafort developments on Tuesday highlight the kind of people who the President has surrounded himself with and — in Cohen’s case — are willing to implicate Trump directly. While the outcome for President Donald Trump remains uncertain, the probable political costs to the GOP just went up significantly. Guilty pleas and guilty verdicts are not the stuff that great presidencies are made of. The “witch hunt” argument looks even less plausible than before, and an air of corruption surrounds the head of the GOP.

Most important, Republican candidates are campaigning in an environment with immense uncertainty about what comes next and with a President who is losing control of the narrative and his temper. At least on Tuesday, it appeared the President’s alleged Teflon is not quite as durable as some believe.

Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University, editor of “The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment” and co-host of the “Politics & Polls” podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @julianzelizer

.

Laura Coates: The prosecution would be wise not to get greedy

The people have spoken. And while it was not a total victory for the prosecution, it was a comprehensive defeat of the former chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Paul Manafort.

Tempting though it may be to retry a defendant on those charges on which the jury has hung, the prosecution would be wise to not get as greedy as they proved Manafort to be in a court of law. For the eight counts on which Manafort was convicted, he faces

upwards of 80 years

in prison, although the actual sentence is expected to be far less. Any additional convictions on the 10 unresolved counts could yield a sentence akin to a de facto life sentence.

If the prosecution is confident about these convictions surviving on appeal, retrying Manafort on the 10 remaining counts at the taxpayers’ expense — particularly with the upcoming trial on related charges in Washington — might inadvertently bolster the President’s claims the trial is about persecution rather than objective prosecution. Justice is, at times, a cost-benefit analysis.

One can’t help but wonder, however, whether the President will honor the tempered verdict or thump the proverbial chest of his pardoning power and undermine his own executive branch’s prosecutorial power. After all, we can’t have a “good man” being

treated worse

than say, Al Capone.

Laura Coates is a CNN legal analyst. She is a former assistant US attorney for the District of Columbia and trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. She is the host of the daily “Laura Coates Show” on SiriusXM. Follow her @thelauracoates

.

Paul Callan: Manafort’s only hope is a presidential pardon

Paul Manafort had a great team of lawyers who despite long odds and their client’s ostrich coat held the Mueller team to only eight conviction counts in an 18 count indictment. The defense lawyers can rightfully claim a partial victory. As they presumably raise toasts to themselves, though, their 69-year-old client will put his prison jumpsuit back on and consume jailhouse food. He will then await his fate, and likely some entertaining and snappy remarks, from Judge T.S. Ellis when Ellis imposes a probable sentence of at least 10 years or more in prison.

While defense lawyers swap war stories about the trial, Manafort will also probably be thinking about his next trial, in Washington, where he may add another 10-20 years to his prison tally. Unless Manafort has some valuable anti-Trump information to trade for a get out of jail free card, his only hope is a presidential pardon.

He will, I imagine, be watching the President’s Twitter feed carefully from now on. And fortunately, Manafort may soon also be able to discuss the nuanced subject of presidential pardons with a man who is unlikely to ever get one, Michael Cohen, Esq — who will soon share Manafort’s fate in a federal correctional facility.

Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, former New York homicide prosecutor, and media law professor.

Alice Stewart: I have stopped believing

It is not unlawful to lie to the media, but it is unscrupulous to lie to your supporters. Honorable people have given this President more than his fair share of mulligans with the assurance that unethical and unlawful behavior is a part of his past. Now, the “rigged witch hunt” and related corruption has appeared at the front door of the White House.

In the span of an afternoon, our family-values party has a President whose former, longtime personal attorney pleaded guilty to paying off a porn star and former Playboy playmate “at the direction of a candidate for federal office” and a former campaign chairman convicted of multiple fraud counts.

Rudy “truth isn’t truth” Giuliani

spins

that there is “no allegation of any wrongdoing against the President.” The truth is — campaign finance violations are wrong. Paying off a porn star and a Playmate is wrong. Not being truthful about these payments is wrong.

In addition, Robert Mueller is not finished, and the truth of Russian collusion remains to be seen.

Amid the fraud fog, a crowd of enthusiastic supporters awaited their fearless leader in West Virginia on Tuesday night. The sound system may have sent the subliminal message: “Don’t Stop Believing.” But I have stopped believing.

Alice Stewart is a CNN political commentator and former communications director for Ted Cruz for President.

Page Pate: Manafort’s guilty, but his fate is far from certain

The verdict was no surprise. The sentence may be.

One “guilty” verdict on bank fraud is enough to send Paul Manafort to prison for

up to 30 years

. And, in this case, the judge has the authority to sentence a defendant up to the maximum allowed by law.

But he doesn’t have to. The crimes Manafort was convicted of Tuesday — including tax fraud, bank fraud and hiding foreign bank accounts — do not require a mandatory minimum amount of time in prison.

There are

sentencing guidelines

in the federal court that will recommend a lot of time in custody based on the amount of money involved in this case, but the judge doesn’t have to follow those guidelines. Given the

judge’s sharp rebukes

of the prosecution during the trial, it’s certainly possible he will give Manafort a sentence much lighter than the guidelines suggest. He could conceivably even give him probation, although the government would likely appeal the sentence if he went that far.

The other possible outcome is that President Donald Trump issues a pardon for Manafort, even before the second trial starts. The promise of a pardon would virtually eliminate the chance Manafort tries to cut a deal now and cooperate against Trump, and it would be consistent with Trump’s

earlier comments

about what a “good man” Manafort is and how “unfairly” he has been treated.

Manafort’s guilty, but his fate is far from certain.

Page Pate, a CNN legal analyst, is a criminal defense and constitutional lawyer based in Atlanta. He is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Georgia, a founding member of the Georgia Innocence Project, a former board member of the Federal Defender Program

in Atlanta and the former chairman of the criminal law section of the Atlanta Bar Association. Follow him on Twitter

@pagepate.

Shan Wu: Winners and losers in Manafort trial

Winners

Mueller Prosecution Team: The Paul Manafort case was a must-win case for them, and they did manage to pull it off. Even though they failed to win a slam-dunk conviction on all 18 counts, they did enough to claim victory and performed well under enormous pressure without any leaks in their confidentiality and before a difficult judge.

Manafort Defense Team: From a defense lawyer’s perspective this was a victory for a legal team that took on a case largely presumed at the outset to be an easy win for the prosecution. Instead, the defense gained credibility with the jury from day one and fought the Mueller team to a virtual tie, eight counts to 10. They kept on the good side of the judge and wisely rested their case without exposing their client to cross-examination.

The Jury: The jury worked through a complex and document-heavy case with remarkably sharp focus and smarts. They are a credit to the criminal justice system.

Losers

President Trump: Tuesday was a historically bad day for the President, as his former campaign manager and former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, were convicted and pleaded guilty on the same afternoon. His claims of a so-called witch hunt will be undercut by the jury’s reasoned and obviously impartial verdict against Manafort — and Cohen’s conviction exponentially increased his legal liabilities.

Judge T.S. Ellis: The judge repeatedly made the trial about himself rather than the case at hand — and his rushed use of the so-called “dynamite charge” opens up potential issues that could put aspects of this verdict at risk on appeal.

Paul Manafort: Despite a strong showing from his defense team, at the end of the day Manafort is now a convicted felon on multiple counts. For him, jail time is very likely. It’s a remarkably long fall from grace for a man who helped elect the President of the United States.

Rick Gates:

Forced to admit in front of the world that he had an extramarital affair, stole from his mentor, and committed criminal fraud — Gates’ experience in this trial was a

brutal

one, especially for a once-successful political operative with a young family and now two felony convictions of his own. It remains to be seen whether the Mueller prosecutors will deem his cooperation worthy of a truly easy sentence, but whatever the sentence may be it cannot be substantively worse than the punishment he already has sustained.

Shan Wu is a former federal prosecutor who briefly represented Rick Gates. None of his opinions are based upon confidential or privileged information.

Read More | ,

Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice, in 2018-08-22 04:40:04

[internetbetterforall]

Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice

Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice http://www.nature-business.com/business-manafort-and-cohen-have-left-trump-at-a-precipice/

Business

(CNN)CNN Opinion asked expert legal analysts and commentators to weigh in with their takeaways from the Paul Manafort verdict and the Michael Cohen saga: what it all means and what comes next. The views expressed in these commentaries are solely those of the authors.

What does it say about the President? After all, aren’t we judged by the company we keep?

Up until now, Republicans in Congress have had little appetite to seriously investigate Trump, much less utter the dreaded “I” word: impeachment. But Congress’ blind support of the President could change drastically if proof is leaked, or otherwise surfaced by way of documentary evidence, that proves that Trump “coordinated and directed” Cohen to violate the law. Congress will then be seen as supporting an alleged criminal. And that can’t be good politically — especially in a midterm election year.

Meanwhile, Manafort’s close association with Trump does not bode well for the President. The former head of the Trump campaign is now a convicted felon. Manafort’s lies, misrepresentation, deceit and hubris landed him in this position. One can only wonder whether another bird with the same feathers will suffer a similar fate.

This leads to even more potentially bad news for the President. The upcoming midterm elections could very well change the dynamics of Congress by placing control in the hands of Democrats. Should this occur, the House will most assuredly go after the President and institute impeachment proceedings for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” All it takes is a majority vote in the House to impeach. And if the Democrats have control, it would mean they have such a majority.

That would then kick the case over to the Senate for an Impeachment trial, in which 67 senators (or two-thirds), would be needed to convict Trump, thereby removing him from office. That’s a heavy and unlikely lift indeed. But perhaps it will get much lighter if there is cold proof the President is an alleged criminal.

In that case, Republicans will have a hard time looking the other way.

Tuesday could mark the beginning of the end of Trump’s presidency. A day that will go down in history indeed.

Joey Jackson is a criminal defense attorney and a legal analyst for CNN and HLN.

Caroline Polisi: Manafort’s trial sheds light on Mueller’s potential collusion case

The refrain from the White House over the course of Paul Manafort’s bank- and tax-fraud trial — the first in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — is that the charges “have nothing to do” with the President or the Trump campaign. In fact, noting that some of the conduct charged stems back 12 years, the President

tweeted

, “These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion — a Hoax!,” an assertion meant to buttress his argument that the entire Russia investigation is a “witch hunt” (a phrase he has used so often, it’s become something of a tagline).

And while it may be true that the charges faced by Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, had relatively little to do with his time on the campaign, they allowed us to learn at least two important pieces of information that shed light into the opaque abyss that is Robert Mueller’s potential case of “collusion.”

1) Manafort was heavily in debt heading into his time working for the Trump campaign for free, the obvious implication of which is that he was hoping to leverage his position for his own economic benefit; and

2) He did take at least one definitive step toward using his position as a bargaining chip for his own personal benefit. As was revealed over the course of his trial, Manafort sought to offer a banker, from whom he’d been accused of fraudulently seeking loans, a role in the Trump administration. In the days after Trump’s election, the bank began issuing loans to Manafort that would eventually

total $16 million

.

Manafort will likely be serving prison time for these crimes, and he faces yet another trial in September. We may learn even more clues about the larger Russia investigation in that trial, no matter how much the President cries “witch hunt.”

Caroline Polisi is a federal and white collar criminal defense attorney in New York, a frequent CNN contributor and is of counsel at Pierce Bainbridge. Follow her on Twitter: @CarolinePolisi

.

Julian Zelizer: Trump’s alleged Teflon isn’t quite so durable

The legal and the political stories about the Trump presidency are converging. The Cohen and Manafort developments on Tuesday highlight the kind of people who the President has surrounded himself with and — in Cohen’s case — are willing to implicate Trump directly. While the outcome for President Donald Trump remains uncertain, the probable political costs to the GOP just went up significantly. Guilty pleas and guilty verdicts are not the stuff that great presidencies are made of. The “witch hunt” argument looks even less plausible than before, and an air of corruption surrounds the head of the GOP.

Most important, Republican candidates are campaigning in an environment with immense uncertainty about what comes next and with a President who is losing control of the narrative and his temper. At least on Tuesday, it appeared the President’s alleged Teflon is not quite as durable as some believe.

Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University, editor of “The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment” and co-host of the “Politics & Polls” podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @julianzelizer

.

Laura Coates: The prosecution would be wise not to get greedy

The people have spoken. And while it was not a total victory for the prosecution, it was a comprehensive defeat of the former chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Paul Manafort.

Tempting though it may be to retry a defendant on those charges on which the jury has hung, the prosecution would be wise to not get as greedy as they proved Manafort to be in a court of law. For the eight counts on which Manafort was convicted, he faces

upwards of 80 years

in prison, although the actual sentence is expected to be far less. Any additional convictions on the 10 unresolved counts could yield a sentence akin to a de facto life sentence.

If the prosecution is confident about these convictions surviving on appeal, retrying Manafort on the 10 remaining counts at the taxpayers’ expense — particularly with the upcoming trial on related charges in Washington — might inadvertently bolster the President’s claims the trial is about persecution rather than objective prosecution. Justice is, at times, a cost-benefit analysis.

One can’t help but wonder, however, whether the President will honor the tempered verdict or thump the proverbial chest of his pardoning power and undermine his own executive branch’s prosecutorial power. After all, we can’t have a “good man” being

treated worse

than say, Al Capone.

Laura Coates is a CNN legal analyst. She is a former assistant US attorney for the District of Columbia and trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. She is the host of the daily “Laura Coates Show” on SiriusXM. Follow her @thelauracoates

.

Paul Callan: Manafort’s only hope is a presidential pardon

Paul Manafort had a great team of lawyers who despite long odds and their client’s ostrich coat held the Mueller team to only eight conviction counts in an 18 count indictment. The defense lawyers can rightfully claim a partial victory. As they presumably raise toasts to themselves, though, their 69-year-old client will put his prison jumpsuit back on and consume jailhouse food. He will then await his fate, and likely some entertaining and snappy remarks, from Judge T.S. Ellis when Ellis imposes a probable sentence of at least 10 years or more in prison.

While defense lawyers swap war stories about the trial, Manafort will also probably be thinking about his next trial, in Washington, where he may add another 10-20 years to his prison tally. Unless Manafort has some valuable anti-Trump information to trade for a get out of jail free card, his only hope is a presidential pardon.

He will, I imagine, be watching the President’s Twitter feed carefully from now on. And fortunately, Manafort may soon also be able to discuss the nuanced subject of presidential pardons with a man who is unlikely to ever get one, Michael Cohen, Esq — who will soon share Manafort’s fate in a federal correctional facility.

Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, former New York homicide prosecutor, and media law professor.

Alice Stewart: I have stopped believing

It is not unlawful to lie to the media, but it is unscrupulous to lie to your supporters. Honorable people have given this President more than his fair share of mulligans with the assurance that unethical and unlawful behavior is a part of his past. Now, the “rigged witch hunt” and related corruption has appeared at the front door of the White House.

In the span of an afternoon, our family-values party has a President whose former, longtime personal attorney pleaded guilty to paying off a porn star and former Playboy playmate “at the direction of a candidate for federal office” and a former campaign chairman convicted of multiple fraud counts.

Rudy “truth isn’t truth” Giuliani

spins

that there is “no allegation of any wrongdoing against the President.” The truth is — campaign finance violations are wrong. Paying off a porn star and a Playmate is wrong. Not being truthful about these payments is wrong.

In addition, Robert Mueller is not finished, and the truth of Russian collusion remains to be seen.

Amid the fraud fog, a crowd of enthusiastic supporters awaited their fearless leader in West Virginia on Tuesday night. The sound system may have sent the subliminal message: “Don’t Stop Believing.” But I have stopped believing.

Alice Stewart is a CNN political commentator and former communications director for Ted Cruz for President.

Page Pate: Manafort’s guilty, but his fate is far from certain

The verdict was no surprise. The sentence may be.

One “guilty” verdict on bank fraud is enough to send Paul Manafort to prison for

up to 30 years

. And, in this case, the judge has the authority to sentence a defendant up to the maximum allowed by law.

But he doesn’t have to. The crimes Manafort was convicted of Tuesday — including tax fraud, bank fraud and hiding foreign bank accounts — do not require a mandatory minimum amount of time in prison.

There are

sentencing guidelines

in the federal court that will recommend a lot of time in custody based on the amount of money involved in this case, but the judge doesn’t have to follow those guidelines. Given the

judge’s sharp rebukes

of the prosecution during the trial, it’s certainly possible he will give Manafort a sentence much lighter than the guidelines suggest. He could conceivably even give him probation, although the government would likely appeal the sentence if he went that far.

The other possible outcome is that President Donald Trump issues a pardon for Manafort, even before the second trial starts. The promise of a pardon would virtually eliminate the chance Manafort tries to cut a deal now and cooperate against Trump, and it would be consistent with Trump’s

earlier comments

about what a “good man” Manafort is and how “unfairly” he has been treated.

Manafort’s guilty, but his fate is far from certain.

Page Pate, a CNN legal analyst, is a criminal defense and constitutional lawyer based in Atlanta. He is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Georgia, a founding member of the Georgia Innocence Project, a former board member of the Federal Defender Program

in Atlanta and the former chairman of the criminal law section of the Atlanta Bar Association. Follow him on Twitter

@pagepate.

Shan Wu: Winners and losers in Manafort trial

Winners

Mueller Prosecution Team: The Paul Manafort case was a must-win case for them, and they did manage to pull it off. Even though they failed to win a slam-dunk conviction on all 18 counts, they did enough to claim victory and performed well under enormous pressure without any leaks in their confidentiality and before a difficult judge.

Manafort Defense Team: From a defense lawyer’s perspective this was a victory for a legal team that took on a case largely presumed at the outset to be an easy win for the prosecution. Instead, the defense gained credibility with the jury from day one and fought the Mueller team to a virtual tie, eight counts to 10. They kept on the good side of the judge and wisely rested their case without exposing their client to cross-examination.

The Jury: The jury worked through a complex and document-heavy case with remarkably sharp focus and smarts. They are a credit to the criminal justice system.

Losers

President Trump: Tuesday was a historically bad day for the President, as his former campaign manager and former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, were convicted and pleaded guilty on the same afternoon. His claims of a so-called witch hunt will be undercut by the jury’s reasoned and obviously impartial verdict against Manafort — and Cohen’s conviction exponentially increased his legal liabilities.

Judge T.S. Ellis: The judge repeatedly made the trial about himself rather than the case at hand — and his rushed use of the so-called “dynamite charge” opens up potential issues that could put aspects of this verdict at risk on appeal.

Paul Manafort: Despite a strong showing from his defense team, at the end of the day Manafort is now a convicted felon on multiple counts. For him, jail time is very likely. It’s a remarkably long fall from grace for a man who helped elect the President of the United States.

Rick Gates:

Forced to admit in front of the world that he had an extramarital affair, stole from his mentor, and committed criminal fraud — Gates’ experience in this trial was a

brutal

one, especially for a once-successful political operative with a young family and now two felony convictions of his own. It remains to be seen whether the Mueller prosecutors will deem his cooperation worthy of a truly easy sentence, but whatever the sentence may be it cannot be substantively worse than the punishment he already has sustained.

Shan Wu is a former federal prosecutor who briefly represented Rick Gates. None of his opinions are based upon confidential or privileged information.

Read More | ,

Business Manafort and Cohen have left Trump at a precipice, in 2018-08-22 04:40:04

[newstwitter-blog]

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/03/04/ny-times-samsung-bribery-scandal-threatens-south-korea-success-story-9/

Ny Times: Samsung Bribery Scandal Threatens South Korea Success Story

South Korea’s political turmoil could usher in a new group of leaders less inclined to treat its business titans with kid gloves. The public is increasingly fed up with white-collar crime. Further, South Korea’s unique blend of business, politics and top-down hierarchical management is looking increasingly untenable in a modern age of innovation, public dissatisfaction with the old order and cutthroat competition from China and the rest of the world.

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Lee and key aides are accused of using bribes to cement the family’s control of the Samsung empire — an accusation that, if proven, would add to growing public perception that the country’s business elite are in it only for themselves. The ensuing scandal threatens to topple South Korea’s government and lead to tougher moves against big business here.

Prosecutors also indicted a group of executives tasked with cementing Mr. Lee’s grip over the sprawling empire — a group that critics say epitomizes where the country’s business culture went wrong.

South Koreans are now coming to grips with a tale of corporate power and family intrigue. It includes a mysteriously ill patriarch, a Rasputin-like confidante of the country’s president, a shadowy Samsung office that has disappeared and reappeared before, and an alleged bribe in the form of a horse.

Continue reading the main story

But it also includes the growing realization that, to compete, Samsung and South Korea as a whole will have to take a hard look at the way they do business.

“We should not miss this opportunity to cut the corrupt ties between politics and businesses,” said Moon Jae-in, a lawmaker and opposition leader who is the favorite to become South Korea’s next president. “Only when Samsung repents its collusion with politics and its anti-market activities, like seeking political favors, can it become stronger.”

Continue reading the main story

Rise of an Empire

Like its home country, Samsung is a giant in transition. The conglomerate is one of the world’s top sellers of televisions and smartphones, a key supplier for the innards of Apple’s iPhones, and the maker of products as varied as cargo ships and credit cards. Its many companies posted estimated combined sales of $262 billion. By itself, it accounts for one-fifth of its home country’s exports.

All of that is under pressure. The infamous failure of its fire-prone Galaxy Note 7 smartphone tarnished its name. Chinese rivals are making cheaper — and increasingly sophisticated — phones, televisions and appliances. Its shipbuilding business is shedding jobs. China’s government is investing lavishly to build out rival makers of microchips and memory. The scandal will delay long-term efforts to address these problems.

All in the Family

South Korea’s economy is dominated by family-controlled conglomerates called chaebol that often run business around the world. Late last year, some of the chiefs of these companies testified before lawmakers about donations to charities in the center of a political bribery scandal. These are four of the country’s biggest chaebol:

Samsung

Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters

Businesses: Smartphones, televisions, semiconductors, appliances, shipbuilding, hotels, movie production

Controlling family: The Lee family. Jay Y. Lee, Samsung’s vice chairman, became its de facto leader in 2014 after Lee Kun-hee, his father and the company’s chairman, fell ill.

Lee Kun-hee was convicted of corruption charges twice, and pardoned. His son has been indicted on bribery charges.

LG

Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Businesses: Smartphones, televisions, appliances, chemicals

Controlling family: The Koo family. Koo Bon-moo is the chairman.

Asked by lawmakers about the donations to the charities in the current scandal, Mr. Koo denied seeking or receiving special treatment for them and told lawmakers, “It was difficult to go against the government’s wishes.”

Hyundai

Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters

Businesses: Car making, shipbuilding, steel, elevators, logistics, construction

Controlling family: The Chung family.

Its chairman, Chung Mong-koo, was found guilty of fraud in 2007 and pardoned.

SK

Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Businesses: Energy, telecommunications, semiconductors, chemicals, construction

Controlling family: The Chey family. Chey Tae-won is the chairman.

Mr. Chey was convicted of embezzlement in 2013 and pardoned two years later.

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Lee still may emerge unscathed. He argues that he didn’t commit bribery and that, instead, he is the victim of extortion. Samsung said in a statement that it neither paid bribes nor sought favors, and said the truth would come to light in court.

Continue reading the main story

But Mr. Lee’s troubles — he was arrested, unprecedented for the leader of South Korea’s largest company, before he was indicted — were a jolt to those who assumed Samsung could once again turn to its political ties for help.

Continue reading the main story

Samsung, which means “three stars” in Korean, has long prospered from politics. Founded by a grandfather of Mr. Lee as a small fish and produce trader in 1938, it branched out into new businesses after the Korean War, including textiles, sugar and alcohol — and later, in 1969, electronics.

The expansion was, in many respects, funded by the government. Its military dictator, Park Chung-hee, wanted to transform South Korea into a country that made what it needed and exported the rest. At the same time, Mr. Park and his successors faced pressure from the country’s struggling populace to get tough on businesses that were seen as profiting from the government’s efforts to kick-start the economy.

Continue reading the main story

The two sides struck a compromise. Mr. Park allowed Mr. Lee’s grandfather and other business leaders to keep their wealth. In return, he urged them to invest in the country’s economic development and to back his push to make South Korea an export powerhouse. To help, he plied them with cheap bank loans, beneficial “buy Korea” policies and other inducements.

This business-government partnership helped wealthy business leaders and their families squeeze out smaller businesses and international competitors. Those groups came to be known as chaebol, or “rich clan” in Korean, and they dominate South Korea’s economic life to this day. The nation’s top 10 chaebol generate combined annual revenue equivalent to 80 percent of South Korea’s total economic output, according to analyst estimates.

“To South Koreans, chaebol have two faces,” said Kim Sang-jo, an economist at Hansung University in Seoul and an authority on Samsung. “On one hand, chaebol symbolize corrupt ties between business and politics, so people call for reforming chaebol. On the other hand, the economy is so heavily dependent on chaebol that people fear that shaking them too much might make them collapse.”

“South Korean people,” he added, “have never had a chance to learn how a modern globalized company should be run.”

Continue reading the main story

Jay Y. Lee’s father, Lee Kun-hee, became Samsung’s chairman after his father, Lee Byung-chull, died in 1987. He faced an immediate challenge: South Korea’s economy had become one of the most successful in Asia, but abroad its products were seen as cheap and unreliable.

Continue reading the main story

In a move that is now part of Samsung’s internal lore, Lee Kun-hee told his (mostly male) executives to “change everything except your wife and kids” and worked to improve Samsung’s quality. He brought in foreign experts. When one batch of phones turned out to be defective, in 1995, he gathered thousands of them into a pile at one of Samsung’s factories and set them on fire. The effort worked. Today Samsung is one of a very few electronics makers to command premium prices for its high-end televisions, smartphones and kitchen appliances.

Continue reading the main story

But Samsung also found itself repeatedly entangled in some of South Korea’s biggest corruption scandals. Lee Kun-hee was twice convicted, first of bribery and then of tax evasion. Each time, he received a suspended prison term and was later pardoned by the president.

In 2014, Lee Kun-hee had a heart attack and disappeared from public view. Samsung has said he is incapacitated, but it hasn’t released details. Still, thanks to a powerful group of executives and advisers, the Lee family’s grip on Samsung remained unchallenged.

Photo

Jay Y. Lee, a vice chairman of Samsung and de facto chairman of the company, arriving for questioning last month at the office of a special prosecutor investigating a corruption scandal in Seoul. Credit Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Continue reading the main story

A New Generation

When Lee Kun-hee’s son, Jay Y. Lee, now 48, took effective reins of the family empire, he didn’t do it alone.

The Lee family’s ownership in the various Samsung companies isn’t clear because many are not publicly traded, but it is widely believed to hold only small minority stakes. Instead, it controls the companies through loyal executives, as well as through interlocking contracts and shareholdings between the companies and other shadowy links.

At Samsung, some of the most loyal executives staffed the corporate strategy office. The office linked Samsung’s chairman with a host of professional executives who run dozens of individual Samsung subsidiaries, which together now employ a half-million people globally. But the office had a less publicized role: It worked to enable the Lee family to pull off the dynastic transfer of control over Samsung’s management.

Mr. Lee, polite and casual where his father could be remote and distant, by title a Samsung vice chairman, had the appearance of a with-it executive who wanted to bring Samsung into the modern era. Though Samsung’s electronics arm made cutting-edge hardware, it was largely missing out on the boom in mobile apps and online services. He also believed that Samsung’s strict corporate culture was holding back innovation.

In a few ways, under Mr. Lee, Samsung began to loosen up. He began a campaign to discourage managers from using harsh language with underlings, a common occurrence in South Korean offices. He also pledged to cut meetings and office hours, encouraged workers to challenge their bosses, and barred employees from using hierarchical titles in addressing one another — a norm in the South Korean corporate world. The initiative, heavily touted by the company, was called Start-Up Samsung.

Continue reading the main story

But critics still saw a top-down approach. For example, the company announced Start-Up Samsung with a coordinated pledge from top executives.

Continue reading the main story

Some current and former employees, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs, said pressure from the top has only grown worse under Mr. Lee. Samsung’s phone business — which was losing market share in China and elsewhere to cheap and increasingly sophisticated Chinese products made by Huawei and OnePlus — had made gains against Apple at the top end of the smartphone market. Hoping to capitalize, Samsung executives rushed to get its most powerful phone yet, the Galaxy Note 7, on the market before Apple introduced its new iPhone 7.

The result was disaster. First, a few Note 7 phones caught fire. Then, after an embarrassing and costly recall, some new versions caught on fire too. In an unusual move in the gadget business, Samsung pulled the phone from the market and canceled it. Kim Sang-jo, the Hansung University economist, and other outside experts blamed Mr. Lee and the corporate strategy office for the Note 7 debacle, saying they pushed big goals without listening to lower-level managers.

At the same time, the corporate strategy office was coming under fire for another move, a deal that would strengthen the family’s hold on Samsung — but one that would also engulf it in scandal.

Continue reading the main story

Turmoil at the Top

Under that office, Samsung pushed a merger of two of its units, Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T. Many outside shareholders opposed the move, which would cement Mr. Lee’s control over the whole conglomerate.

The trick was getting government approval — and to win it, prosecutors say, Mr. Lee and the corporate strategy office broke the law.

Continue reading the main story

According to prosecutors, Mr. Lee met with South Korea’s president, Park Geun-hye, three times in an effort to cement the deal and smooth Mr. Lee’s rise to power. In return, they say, Ms. Park, who has been impeached, asked Mr. Lee to support two foundations controlled by her secret confidante, a woman named Choi Soon-sil. According to prosecutors, Mr. Lee and members of Samsung’s corporate strategy office gave foundations and businesses linked to Ms. Choi $38 million. Samsung’s contributions to Ms. Choi included an $900,000 horse for her equestrian daughter.

Photo

Lee Kun-hee, the former Samsung Group chairman and the father of Jay Y. Lee, the company’s de facto chairman, leaves after his trial for tax evasion at a Seoul court in 2008. He was handed a suspended three-year jail term. Credit Jo Yong-hak/Reuters

The country’s national pension fund, a major shareholder of the two Samsung companies, approved the deal. According to prosecutors, the completed merger increased the stock value of the Lee family by at least $758 million. The country’s national pension fund lost at least $123 million on the deal.

Continue reading the main story

In a statement, Samsung said shareholders of both companies approved the deal before any donations were made. But it also said it introduced measures to manage donations, including greater public disclosure and more reviews by executives and directors.

Continue reading the main story

Ms. Choi’s relationship with Ms. Park last year ignited a nationwide scandal. Ms. Choi, who has no formal government title, was reported to have been involved with writing Ms. Park’s speeches, choosing top government officials and even selecting her outfits. As the scandal spread, the alleged bribes came to the attention of prosecutors.

For many South Koreans, the scandal resonates. Ms. Park, who could soon be removed from office, is the daughter of the dictator who gave Mr. Lee’s family the support to broaden Samsung into the giant it is today. It also underscores the perception that today’s chaebol leaders are hurting more than they are helping the country.

Others have said that the company culture has grown more strict since Mr. Lee’s father was incapacitated and pressures on the company to perform well under Mr. Lee grew.

Continue reading the main story

“They forgot their fathers’ and grandfathers’ entrepreneurship,” said Mr. Moon, the opposition leader, referring to Mr. Lee and other third-generation chaebol leaders, “and chose to make easy money.”

Stung by the scandal, Samsung closed the corporate strategy office. Skeptics point out that Samsung has done that before. Mr. Lee’s father disbanded the office when he ran into legal trouble, only to re-establish it under its current name once those troubles blew over. Its functions may simply migrate to another part of the empire, they say.

“The mission right now is to save Jay Y. Lee,” said Chang Sea-jin, a professor at the National University of Singapore. “It’s like ‘Saving Private Ryan.’”

Samsung said in a statement that its companies would be managed independently by its chief executives and directors.

Continue reading the main story

But there is reason to believe this time could be different.

Already Mr. Lee has been punished more than his father, who never spent any time in jail. The case also implicates South Korea’s president, while approval ratings for her pro-business party have plummeted, meaning political protection from the top is less likely. And public anger about collusion between companies and the government has never been greater, with protests breaking out this year.

Continue reading the main story

It isn’t clear whether somebody else may emerge to lead Samsung. Lee Boo-jin, Mr. Lee’s sister and the country’s richest woman, runs the Samsung affiliate Hotel Shilla, which also operates duty-free shops. With her brother in jail, some analysts speculated that she might try to increase her profile within the vast corporate empire. But most analysts say Samsung’s complicated hierarchy is already dominated by executives loyal to Mr. Lee.

Continue reading the main story

While analysts warn it isn’t likely anything will immediately change, Samsung is undoubtedly facing a new level of pressure and scrutiny.

“The thing about Samsung is, it’s a giant wound-up ball of yarn of cross-holdings,” said Geoffrey Cain, the author of a coming book on Samsung. “The setup is so complicated that sometimes I wonder if a group of smart people could find a way to tug at the right connection and find a way to loosen it up, to unravel it a bit, just to see if they could pull it away from the company.”

He added, “That’s never happened in Korea before.”

Continue reading the main story

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

[opedguy]

Trump Fake News Won’t Stop

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), June 1, 2021.--Kept in the news by the left-leaning press, 74-year-old President Donald Trump won’t go quietly into the night, not because he’s grabbing headlines but because the media continues its yellow journalism.  Trump was impeached twice by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) largely because of her vendetta against the president.  Pelosi was so intemperate when it came to Trump, she ripped up his 2020 State of the Union Speech on national TV.  Pelosi and her Democrat minions did everything possible to destroy Trump, impeaching him twice both on questionable charges.  First, Pelosi accused Trump of a quid pro quo with 43-year-old Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and second, accused the former president of “incitement of insurrection.”  Both impeachment counts failed because they were both baseless, because neither of the impeachment counts made and sense.    

         Trump’s four years in office were marked by Democrats and the media trying-and-convicting him of Russian collusion based on former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bogus opposition research.  Trump spent four years defending scurrilous accusations and the press.  Nothing changed at the end with Democrats and press accusing Trump of the “big lie” that voter fraud kept him from a second term.  Democrats and the press ignore universal mail-in ballots voter fraud, accusing Republicans of voter suppression if every man, woman and teenager don’t get mail-in ballots.  So when Democrats accuse Trump of the “big lie,” there’s no way Trump can prove voter fraud because of universal mail-in ballots.  Former Chapman University Law professor John Eastman, who wrote the Texas brief to the Supreme Court, said it was impossible to detect voter fraud with mail-in ballots.  

           New fake reports from the New York Times claims Trump has been telling associates that he’ll be reinstated into the White House by August, once GOP audits in Arizona and George prove that massive voter fraud took place.  Trump has become the boogey man for the Democrat Party, continuing to demonize the ex-president.  But when it comes to new information about how the U.S. press spread Chinese Communist Party propaganda about the origin of the deadly novel coronavirus, only fake news.  All U.S. and foreign press coverage for the origin of the Covid-19 global pandemic regurgitated the Chinese Communist Party.  Chinese officials change their story about the origin of the virus.  One day, the virus occurred naturally in a seafood or wet market. Next day, Chinese officials insist the U.S. military planted the virus in Wuhan.  Yet the U.S. and foreign press discredit the lab-leak theory.  

           No one in the liberal press makes up more fake news that New York Times Maggie Haberman.  She’s the first one to report that Trump thinks he’ll be reinstated as president in Aug., while, at the same time, the last one to report that China manufactured, with foreign help, the deadly novel coronavirus in a bio-weapons lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Habberman accepts left-wing propgaganda as “science” but when it comes to former President Trump saying April 30, 2020 that the virus was made in a Chinese lab, it’s a baseless conspiracy theory.  To Haberman, anything she could write to discredit Trump and help78-year-old Joe Biden get elected was her New York Times duty.  Forget about the truth, all that mattered was advancing the Democrat political agenda to get Trump out of office.  Well, the liberal press succeeded at getting rid of Trump and destroyed U.S. journalism.  

           Reporting on Trump thinking he’ll be reinstated as president is the pinnacle of fake news.  Who cares what Trump thinks when he’s on the threshold of getting indicted by U.S. Atty. Cyrus Vance Jr. in the Southern District of New York for various white collar crimes connected to the Trump Organization.  Whether any of the charges stick is anyone’s guess.  Haberman likes to quote, if you can believe it, right wing nut jobs My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, former White House counsel Sidney Powell and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon.  What type of news cites right-wing lunatics?  Only anti-Trump publications like the New York Times, Washington Post or broadcast outlets like CNN or MSNBC make up fake news to fill in programming.  No one believes that Trump will be reinstated president.  There’s simply no provision in the U.S. Constitution to overturn a certified election. 

            When it comes to spurious statements about Trump or his sick followers making up things about getting reinstated in the White House, it’s fake news not fit to print anywhere, even the New York Times.  But with mounting evidence that the deadly novel coronavirus was made in a Wuhan lab, it’s time for the media to admit they’ve played politics with the facts, preventing the public from hearing the truth.  New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC, never told the truth about the lab-leak theory because it was backed by Trump. If Trump says black, the media says white, regardless of the truth.  Newspapers and broadcast outlets have to get back to the main mission of reporting the news, regardless of whom it helps or hurts politically.  When it comes to today’s “big lie,” it’s not about the 2020 election, it’s about the First Amendment that guarantees free speech, not propaganda.

 About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. Reply  Reply All  Forward